What Atheists Believe

Humans eat, sleep, and reproduce, but most of us are not content with just those things. We want to know why we are here. We seek meaning in our lives. We also desire a hope for the future. These deeper needs point to a quality that is unique to humankind—spirituality, or the need and capacity for spiritual things.
The Bible explains the reason for the spiritual side of man’s nature, saying: “God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:27) Our being formed “in God’s image” means that even though we have been tarnished by sin and imperfection, we have the ability to mirror certain qualities of God. (Romans 5:12) We can be creative. We also have a measure of wisdom, a sense of justice, and the ability to show self-sacrificing love for one another. We can reflect on the past and plan for the future.—Proverbs 4:7; Ecclesiastes 3:1, 11; Micah 6:8; John 13:34; 1 John 4:8.
Our spiritual capacity is most clearly demonstrated in our innate desire to worship God. Unless we properly satisfy the need to be in touch with our Creator, we cannot find true and lasting happiness. “Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need,” Jesus said. (Matthew 5:3) To satisfy that need with spiritual truth we need the truth about God, his standards, and his purpose for mankind.
The apostle Paul wrote: “All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight.” (2 Timothy 3:16) Paul’s words harmonize with those of Jesus, who said in prayer to God: “Your word is truth.” That Word is the Holy Bible.—John 17:17.
By comparing our beliefs with God’s Word, we imitate the people of ancient Beroea, who made sure that Paul’s teachings harmonized with the Scriptures. Rather than criticize the Beroeans, Luke commended them for their attitude. They “received the word with the greatest eagerness of mind,” he wrote, “carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so.” (Acts 17:11) In view of the contradictory religious and moral teachings that abound today, it is wise to imitate the example of the noble-minded Beroeans.
Another way to identify spiritual truth is to see how it influences people’s lives. (Matthew 7:17) For example, living according to Bible truth should make one a better husband, a better father, a better wife, or a better mother, thus adding to family happiness and enhancing one’s contentment. “Happy are those hearing the word of God and keeping it,” said Jesus.—Luke 11:28.
Jesus’ words remind us of those of his heavenly Father, who said to the ancient Israelites: “I, Jehovah, am your God, the One teaching you to benefit yourself, the One causing you to tread in the way in which you should walk. O if only you would actually pay attention to my commandments! Then your peace would become just like a river, and your righteousness like the waves of the sea.” (Isaiah 48:17, 18) God made that heartfelt appeal to the Israelites because they were being misled by religious lies. (Psalm 106:35-40) Those searching for truth must be on guard against falsehoods. Concerning professed Christians, Paul wrote: “There will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled; and they will turn their ears away from the truth.”—2 Timothy 4:3, 4.
Religious leaders tickle people’s ears by condoning practices that appeal to wrong desires, such as sex outside of marriage, homosexuality, and drunkenness. The Bible clearly states that those who approve of such things and those who practice them “will not inherit God’s kingdom.”—1 Corinthians 6:9, 10; Romans 1:24-32.
It takes courage to live by Bible standards, especially in the face of ridicule. Many individuals who used to be drug addicts, drunkards, fornicators, street fighters, thieves, and liars took God’s Word to heart and with the help of holy spirit made changes in their lives so as to “walk worthily of Jehovah.” (Colossians 1:9, 10; 1 Corinthians 6:11) Having made peace with God, they also gained inner peace and a genuine hope for the future.
The Bible hope of lasting peace for obedient humans will be fulfilled through the Kingdom of God. “Let your kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also upon earth,” said Jesus in his model prayer. (Matthew 6:10) Only God’s Kingdom can ensure that God’s will is done on earth because that heavenly Kingdom—a government in the hands of Jesus Christ—is God’s means of expressing His rightful sovereignty over the earth.—Psalm 2:7-12; Daniel 7:13, 14.
As King of that heavenly Kingdom, Jesus Christ will liberate obedient humans from every form of bondage, including the grip of Adamic sin and its legacy of sickness and death. Says Revelation 21:3, 4: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind . . . And he [Jehovah God] will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.”
The reason we can be sure that lasting peace will prevail earth wide is revealed at Isaiah 11:9, which says: “They [the Kingdom’s subjects] will not do any harm or cause any ruin in all my holy mountain; because the earth will certainly be filled with the knowledge of Jehovah as the waters are covering the very sea.” Every human on earth will have accurate knowledge of God and be obedient to him.
By means of the Kingdom, God will undo all the works of Satan and educate people in His righteous ways. That Kingdom was the focus of Jesus’ teaching. “I must declare the good news of the kingdom of God,” he said, “because for this I was sent forth.” (Luke 4:43) Christ commanded his disciples to share that same message with others. (Matthew 28:19, 20) “This good news of the kingdom,” he foretold, “will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come.” (Matthew 24:14)

I remember reading a memoir of Simon Wiesenthal in which he described how he was in line to be executed at a Nazi death camp, but spared because the guard doing the killing had to run off to attend Mass.

Good thing that devout person had Christian morality to guide his actions. Imagine what atrocities he might have committed were that not the case. Atheists, take heed.

I remember reading a memoir of Simon Wiesenthal in which he described how he has in line to be executed at a Nazi death camp, but spared because the guard doing the killing had to run off to attend Mass.

Good thing that devout person had Christian morality to guide his actions. Imagine what atrocities he might have committed were that not the case. Atheists, take heed.

Greetings again TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ,

“Where do your get advice on morality? Do you just make your own moral laws and never get advice on what is morally permissible?”

I get my morality from society, my peers and my parents. So do you. How else would you explain the fact that when you cherry pick verses from the Bible you pick those that are morally good and ignore the ones that violate the constitution and laws of your country? For instance, when last did you stone a homosexual, someone that worked on the Sabbath or a cheeky child? Have you sold your daughter into sexual slavery yet or stoned her for not being a virgin on her wedding day? Do you see my argument?

(We are a bit off topic here so if anybody wants to pull us into line please do so.)

Peace.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
ANDREW :
DEAR ANONYMOUS,
JULY 10, 2008 8:05 AM
“MORALITY AND HUMAN LIFE”

IRT:
Morality:
“Are you telling me that you have to consult a book to receive moral guidance?

ANS:
Where do your get advice on morality? Do you just make your own moral laws and never get advice on what is morally permissible?

Ethics` is a science that determines the moral feasibleness or malfeasance of human acts. The rules of Ethics are the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics, Christian ethics

Have you ever heard of Dr. Joseph Fletcher? He was the Dean of the School of Ethics at the University of Virginia. He was the Father of Situation Ethics.

Doctor Fletcher taught at the University of Virginia and advocated taking the life of anyone who didn’t measure up to his standards for life. He, as the Court, redefined human life.

Failure to see ethical consequences is an omen for social suicide Dr. Fletcher, the Father of Situation Ethics, like Hitler, proposed the legal murder of people he deemed useless, viz. those who hadn’t reached the use of reason or were a drag on society. Slowly and surreptitiously, this ethic is becoming a reality. That is a harbinger for social moral implosion.

Does that mean anything to you? Do you never concur with others about the proper thing to do, or do you just do something because you want to, irrespective of its moral implications.

For instance, does it matter what a Just War is, or does it matter if it is morally permissible to drop a nuclear bomb on a city?

Is it morally permissible to take the life of an innocent human person intentionally? Is abortion morally permissible and why? Is euthanasia morally justified and why? Is it permissible to starve someone to death and why?

Are you concerned that the Court can dictate your inalienable rights. If you’re pro-abortion then you approve of the Court’s transgression of the inviolable right of a person’s Right to Life.

Did it matter to you that the Court redefined humanity and claimed the unborn was not a person. They did that once before by redefining a Black person was not fully human. We ended in a Civil war over that screw-up.

Because of Justice Kennedy, the Court majority decided you do have a right to defend yourself, and we avoided abolishing the Second Amendment. Four unelected judges decided that your inviolable right to self-defense was no longer applicable.

The Court also decided to curtail you inviolable right to property by trespassing on the laws of eminent domain. In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Kelo v. the City of New London, ruled that the Connecticut city had the right to condemn unblighted private property and transfer it to another private owner for development even if the only public benefit might be increased employment and tax revenues.

Public outcry over the decision subsequently led most states to adopt legislation or constitutional amendments that limited, in varying degrees, the ability of state and local governments to use eminent domain to condemn private property for use by a private corporation.”

Are these matters of concern? They were for the Founding Fathers, especially to Madison who insisted that we write into the Constitution the Ninth Amendment to guarantee the un-numerated rights of citizens that were not written in the Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson said we go to the Church for our moral guidance, and so should all who have to make serious moral decisions.

The Church is given to man to guide him on his journey to return to God and receive His eternal happiness promised to man by God. We do that by being morally responsible for our duties and acts of behavior.

The Catholic Church, instituted by God, is the guardian of the Natural Moral Law (NML). The Declaration of Independence is predicated on the NML, as is the Bill of Rights. The Church is protected from error in its teachings and religious beliefs. Thus, it is written:

Mt.28:20 "...and teaching to obey everything I have commanded you. And, surely, I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Mt.10: "For it will not be YOU speaking but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you."

John 15: 26-27 "When the counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, He will testify about me. And, you must also testify about me, who has been with me from the beginning.”

There is no other institution or government in the history of the world greater than the Catholic Church, that defends the sacred dignity and majesty of human life, its inviolable human rights, and the exigencies of man contained in the NML. Why wouldn’t man seek its wisdom given to it by God?

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
DAVEY :
“THE PURPOSE OF CHRISTIANITY”

IRT
"The. Christians are funny. They’re always so excited about sending people to hell, but pretending to be so sad about it."

Editor's Note: After clicking 'Post', please allow 2-3 minutes for your comment to appear on the site.

ANS:
To the contrary, Christians do not rejoice that people go to Hell; their sadness is that people go to Hell despite the efforts of Christians to keep them out of Hell. That is the purpose of the Church.

Also, it is the purpose of Jesus’ Incarnation and Crucifixion that man may be saved from eternal damnation. Anyone who would rejoice at someone going to Hell would be anti-Christ.

Thus, as the Jews crucified Jesus, Jesus cried out on the cross, “Forgive them for they know not what they do.” Even as Jesus was dying on the cross, He attempted to save His murderers from the ravages of Hell.

In addition, both thieves being crucified with Jesus cursed Him, but in the end, one thief said to Jesus, “Master when You enter Your Kingdom may you take me with You?” Jesus answered, “This very day you will be with Me in Paradise.”

Moreover, when Jesus was in the Garden of Gethsemane, Judas came to betray Jesus. Jesus, knowing that Judas was to betray Him, said, “Friend, why are you here?” Even though Jesus knew what Judas was about to do, He did not revile Judas, but still gave Judas His friendship and was grievously saddened that Judas would not accept it. Thus, Jesus remorsefully said,” It would have been better if he (Judas) had not been born."

God sent His only Son to redeem every man He created. Because of God's love for man, He created every man for the purpose of being with him in Paradise. That includes those who scorn Him, the atheists, agnostics, and troglodytes. Thus, Saint Augustine said, “Lord you have created us for yourself. Our hearts are restless until they rest in you.”

Though God is Merciful and Compassionate, He also is a Just God. He gives man every chance to be with Him; no one is excluded. If man refuses to take that chance, he condemns himself eternally to Hell.

That is why a true Christian is sad, when a man ends up in Hell because he refuses the love of God, a God, Who because of His love for man, does everything possible to save man. Hence, Jesus said, “No one has more love for another than he who lays down his life for another.” Jesus, who is God, died for man, that man might have eternal happiness.

Moreover, the two greatest commandments of the Christian religion are, “Love your neighbor as you love yourself and as God loves you,” and “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

No Christian should rejoice that a soul goes to Hell. It is not the wish of God, nor should it be the wish of any one who claims to be Christian. To rejoice in the damnation of a soul, even Hitler’s soul, would be an anti-Christian act.

Dear Anonymous,

Morality:
Are you telling me that you have to consult a book to receive moral guidance? I hope not and one of the reasons why is because your god recommends death as suitable punishment for a disobedient child. (Deuteronomy 21:18-21, Exodus 21:15, Leviticus 20:9, Mark 7:9-13, Mathew 15:4-7)
And you are worried about souls in a Petri dish?

Scientists:
It is true that some of our greatest scientists believed in a god. This is nothing more than an interesting fact. I would however like to ask you to be intellectually honest and remove Einstein from your list below.

“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.” - EINSTEIN

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
ANDREW :
“RELIGION WING NUTS AND ELECTRIC CHAIRS WHO REALLY IS THE NUT?”

The Founding Fathers based your inalienable rights on our Judeo Christian heritage of the Neural Moral Laws. Many countries didn’t, like Nazi Germany, Communist China, North Korea, and East Germany. Cambodia, the Sudan, and the Congo. Aren’t you glad the Founders realized the value of religion?

“Jefferson's religion is a little difficult to pin down. He apparently believed in a supreme being, although not one that resembles the Christian God.

According to webmaster Lewis Loflin:" Jefferson says he was a 'Materialist' (letter to Short, Apr. 13, 1820), and a 'Unitarian' (letter to Waterhouse, Jan. 8, 1825).

Further, Jefferson specifically named Joseph Priestly (English Unitarian who moved to America) and Conyers Middleton (English Deist) and said, 'I rest on them ... as the basis of my own faith' (letter to Adams, Aug. 22, 1813). Therefore, without using the actual words, Jefferson issued an authentic statement claiming Deism as his faith."

Thomas Jefferson said, “If not the Churches, who do we go to when we seek moral counsel?”

In 1813: "He who steadily observes the moral precepts in which all religions concur, will never be questioned at the gates of heaven as to the dogmas in which they all differ." Letter to William Canby.

"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."

"The constitutional freedom of religion [is] the most inalienable and sacred of all human rights." --Thomas Jefferson: Virginia Board of Visitors Minutes, 1819. ME 19:416

"Religion, as well as reason, confirms the soundness of those principles on which our government has been founded and its rights asserted." --Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815. ME 14:283

Solzhenitsyn:
“However, in early democracies, as in American democracy at the time of its birth, all individual human rights were granted because man is God's creature. That is, freedom was given to the individual conditionally, in the assumption of his constant religious responsibility

Such was the heritage of the preceding thousand years. Two hundred or even fifty years ago, it would have seemed quite impossible, in America, that an individual could be granted boundless freedom simply for the satisfaction of his instincts or whims.

Subsequently, however, all such limitations were discarded everywhere in the West; a total liberation occurred from the moral heritage of Christian centuries with their great reserves of mercy and sacrifice.

STATE SYSTEMS WERE BECOMING INCREASINGLY AND TOTALLY MATERIALISTIC. The West ended up by truly enforcing human rights, sometimes even excessively, but man's sense of responsibility to God and society grew dimmer and dimmer.

In the past decades, the legalistically selfish aspect of Western approach and thinking has reached its final dimension and the world wound up in a harsh spiritual crisis and a political impasse.

All THE GLORIFIED TECHNOLOGICAL achievements of Progress, including the conquest of outer space, do not redeem the Twentieth century's moral poverty which no one could imagine even as late as in the Nineteenth Century."

IRT:
“Does religious belief cause blindness, making you unable to read, does it make you deaf, does it remove your ability to make sense of words and enter into meaningful dialog, does it erode rationality and make you hostile to reason, does it impart the virtues of love? It does seem so to me.”

ANS:
Yes, it does all those things to the materialist and atheists. You seem to be an example.

IRT:
“And my ex girlfriend wanted to put our possible future children into a religious school and brainwash their little young minds! I will miss her though.”

ANS:
Yes, I can see why you’d be so befuddled. Who would want those imbecile Christians teaching your children the Ten Commandments, certainly not the Fourth, “Honor thy father and mother,” or the Fifth, “Thou shalt not kill.” If they learned that murder was wrong, they might have a problem with abortion.

You surely don’t want that; we’ve only murdered over 48 million. Soon will match the murders of that great atheists leader Hitler. Abortion is a great achievement for anti religious abortionists. What would Population Zero say? We don’t want all those little kids growing up and using up all our resources.

Again, you surely don’t want religious imbeciles teaching your children the Eighth, not to lie. Even Clinton was allowed to lie, and proved lying and he violated the Sixth and Tenth, adultery, and the Seventh and Ninth, covetousness and greed. He did them all and got reelected.

Moreover, you wouldn’t want your children being taught it’s wrong to commit adultery, or fornication, or commit the seven deadly sins of Pride, Gluttony, Envy, Greed, Sloth, Wrath and Lust would you.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
ANDREW :
“RELIGION WING NUTS AND ELECTRIC CHAIRS WHO REALLY IS THE NUT?”

IRT:
“If Jesus was killed by electrocution and not crucifixion, would you be walking around with a small electric chair around your neck celebrating the method of His killing? Perhaps with a small blue flashing LED imitating the voltage going through his body.”

ANS:
What is your problem with the Truth, having trouble facing it? Truth does do that to the incomprehensible.

IRT:
You are a sorry lot indead.

ANS:
Is that due to telling you things you can't fathom?

IRT:
“What gets to me about religious wing-nuts is that they lay claim to social morality. This is an absurd and fantastical belief, even perverse and psychotic.

For goodness sake how many examples does one need to give of “never, never land” beliefs that have caused immeasurable damage to society?”

ANS:
It appears a lot of things get you. Are you talking about the damage caused by the irreligious abortionist? Is it the murder of over 48 million unborn the Christians are trying to stop that bothers you? Maybe you're disturbed the Embryonic Stem Cell Researchers might get to murder their embryos.

Could the damage you're blaming Christians for be the some sixty million that the atheists Mao murdered in China, or the millions the atheists Pol Pot murdered in Cambodia weren’t enough because of Christian interference.

Maybe you’re blaming Christians for the near sixty million Hitler murdered. I always thought Hitler hated Christians and Jews because they defended human rights. And again, maybe your blaming the Christians for the some sixty million Stalin had murdered.

In Solzhenitsyn speech at Harvard, he said just the opposite, namely that chaos and the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypses, famine, pestilence, war, and death were caused because the dictators didn’t believe in God.

Solzhenitsyn at Harvard:
“However, in early democracies, as in American democracy at the time of its birth, all individual human rights were granted because man is God's creature. That is, freedom was given to the individual conditionally, in the assumption of his constant religious responsibility.

Such was the heritage of the preceding thousand years. Two hundred or even fifty years ago, it would have seemed quite impossible, in America, that an individual could be granted boundless freedom simply for the satisfaction of his instincts or whims.

Subsequently, however, all such limitations were discarded everywhere in the West; a total liberation occurred from the moral heritage of Christian centuries with their great reserves of mercy and sacrifice.

State systems were becoming increasingly and totally materialistic. The West ended up by truly enforcing human rights, sometimes even excessively, but man's sense of responsibility to God and society grew dimmer and dimmer.

In the past decades, the legalistically selfish aspect of Western approach and thinking has reached its final dimension and the world wound up in a harsh spiritual crisis and a political impasse.

All the glorified technological achievements of Progress, including the conquest of outer space, do not redeem the Twentieth century's moral poverty which no one could imagine even as late as in the Nineteenth Century.”

This is a man who lived through the ravages of atheistic fanatics. You might take his advise to heart. What Solzhenitsyn witnessed is happening to America.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
ANDREW :
“SCIENCE”

IRT:
[To the contrary, many things can be determined in the future, the weathermen do it every day.]

IRT:
“Are you trying to cloak your arguments in the respectability of science? Is this not just a teeny weenie bit ironical TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ?”

ANS:
Christianity is the vanguard of Science. Some of the greatest scientist in the world believed in God and were Jewish or Christian. The reason is Christian principles respect the dignity of human life and the God given inalienable rights of man. That is a necessity for free thought.

“Non-Christian cultures did not possess the same philosophical tools, and in fact were burdened by conceptual frameworks that hindered the development of science.”

You might try reading the scientific achievements of the Catholic Church. “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization” by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

“It is all very well to point out that important scientists, like Louis Pasteur, have been Catholic. The first person to measure the rate of acceleration of a freely falling body was Fr. Giambattista Riccioli. The man who has been called the father of Egyptology was Fr. Athanasius Kircher (also called 'master of a hundred arts' for the breadth of his knowledge). Fr. Roger Boscovich, who has been described as "the greatest genius that Yugoslavia ever produced," has often been called the father of modern atomic theory.

In the sciences it was the Jesuits in particular who distinguished themselves; some 35 craters on the moon, in fact, are named after Jesuit scientists and mathematicians.

By the eighteenth century, the Jesuits had contributed to the development of pendulum clocks, pantographs, barometers, reflecting telescopes and microscopes, to scientific fields as various as magnetism, optics and electricity.

They observed, in some cases before anyone else, the colored bands on Jupiter’s surface, the Andromeda nebula, and Saturn’s rings. They theorized about the circulation of the blood (independently of Harvey), the theoretical possibility of flight, the way the moon affected the tides, and the wave-like nature of light.

Star maps of the southern hemisphere, symbolic logic, flood-control measures on the Po and Adige rivers, introducing plus and minus signs into Italian mathematics – all were typical Jesuit achievements, and scientists as influential as Fermat, Huygens,

Leibniz and Newton were not alone in counting Jesuits among their most prized correspondents [Jonathan Wright, The Jesuits, 2004, p. 189].

Seismology, the study of earthquakes, has been so dominated by Jesuits that it has become known as "the Jesuit science." It was a Jesuit, Fr. J.B. Macelwane, who wrote Introduction to Theoretical Seismology, the first seismology textbook in America, in 1936.

To this day, the American Geophysical Union, which Fr. Macelwane once headed, gives an annual medal named after this brilliant priest to a promising young geophysicist.

When Johannes Kepler posited that planetary orbits were elliptical rather than circular, Catholic astronomer Giovanni Cassini verified Kepler’s position through observations he made in the Basilica of San Petronio in the heart of the Papal States. Cassini, incidentally, was a student of Fr. Riccioli and Fr. Francesco Grimaldi, the great astronomer who also discovered the diffraction of light, and even gave the phenomenon its name.”

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/scientists-who-believe-in-god-faq.htm

Some of the multitude of famous Scientist who believed in God;
Nicholas Copernicus
Francis Bacon
Johannes Kepler
Galileo Galilei
Rene Descartes
Isaac Newton
Robert Boyle
Michael Faraday
Gregor Mendel
William Kelvin
Max Planck
Albert Einstein;

Thanks for your response but I need sleep or else my butt will be history at work. Good night and peace from South Africa.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
ANDREW :
“THE EUCHARIST”

IRT:
"What is with drinking the blood of and eating the flesh of Christ all about? The bread you eat actually turns into the flesh of Christ literally? Heck man this is sick cannibalistic, demented lunacy."

ANS:
“The Eucharist is the name given to the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar in its twofold aspect of sacrament and Sacrifice of Mass, and in which Jesus Christ is truly present under the bread and wine.

The quintessence of these doctrinal decisions consists in this, that in the Eucharist are the Body and Blood of the God-man. They are truly, really, and substantially present for the nourishment of our souls, by reason of the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, and that in this change of substances the UNBLOODY Sacrifice of the New Testament is also contained.“

God is present under the properties of Bread and Wine. The substance of the Bread and Wine is transubstantiated into the presence of God, the Creator, viz. His Essence and Existence, or the Body and Blood of Jesus. The outward appearance or the accidental philosophical properties of the Bread and Wine remain.

It is written: “And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke and gave to his disciples and said: Take ye and eat. This is my body. And taking the chalice, he gave thanks and gave to them, saying, 'Drink ye all of this. For, this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.” –Mt 26:26cf.; Mark 14: 22; Lk22: 19; 1Co 11:24

"These three principle truths -- Sacrifice, Sacrament, and Real Presence -- are given a more detailed consideration in the following articles:

The Sacrifice of the Mass
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm

The Eucharist as a Sacrament
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05584a.htm

The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm

The Church honors the Eucharist as one of her most exalted mysteries, since for sublimity and incomprehensibility it yields in nothing to the allied mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation.

These three mysteries constitute a wonderful triad, which causes the essential characteristic of Christianity, as a religion of mysteries far transcending the capabilities of reason, to shine forth in all its brilliance and splendor, and elevates Catholicism, the most faithful guardian and keeper of our Christian heritage, far above all pagan and non-Christian religions.

Thus in the bosom of the Blessed Trinity, God the Father, by virtue of the eternal generation, communicates His Divine Nature to God the Son.

This is "the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father" (John 1:18). The Son of God, by virtue of the hypostatic [a distinct personal being or substance] union, communicates in turn the Divine Nature received from His Father to His human nature formed in the womb of the Virgin Mary (John 1:14). In order that thus, as God-man, hidden under the Eucharistic Species, He might deliver Himself to His Church.

She, the Church, who, as a tender mother, mystically cares for and nurtures in her own bosom this, her greatest treasure, and daily places it before her children as the spiritual food of their souls.

Thus, the Trinity, Incarnation, and Eucharist are really welded together like a precious chain, which in a wonderful manner links heaven with earth, God with man, uniting them most intimately, and keeping them thus united.

The Church is not a man made institution but instituted by Jesus who is God.

By the very fact that the Eucharistic mystery does TRANSCEND REASON, no rationalistic explanation of it, based on a merely natural hypothesis and seeking to comprehend one of the sublimest truths of the Christian religion as the spontaneous conclusion of logical processes, may be attempted by a Catholic theologian.

The modern science of comparative religion is striving, wherever it can, to discover in pagan religions 'religio-historical parallels', corresponding to the theoretical and practical elements of Christianity, and thus by means of the former to give a natural explanation of the latter.

Even were an analogy discernible between the Eucharistic repast and the ambrosia and nectar of the ancient Greek gods, or the haoma of the Iranians, or the soma of the ancient Hindus, we should nevertheless be very cautious not to stretch a mere analogy to a parallelism strictly so called. The Christian Eucharist has nothing at all in common with these pagan foods, whose origin is to be found in the crassest idol- and nature-worship.

What we do particularly discover is a new proof of the reasonableness of the Catholic religion, from the circumstance that Jesus Christ in a wonderfully condescending manner responds to the natural craving of the human heart. The Eucharist is a food that nourishes unto immortality, a craving expressed in many pagan religions, by dispensing to mankind His own Flesh and Blood.

All that is beautiful, all that is true in the religions of nature, Christianity has appropriated to itself, and like a concave mirror has collected the dispersed and not infrequently distorted rays of truth into their common focus and again sent them forth resplendently in perfect beams of light.

It is the Church alone, 'the pillar and ground of truth', imbued with, protected, and directed by the Holy Spirit, that guarantees to her children through her infallible teaching the full and unadulterated revelation of God."

One last point and then I’m going to sleep.

If Jesus was killed by electrocution and not crucifixion, would you be walking around with a small electric chair around your neck celebrating the method of His killing? Perhaps with a small blue flashing LED imitating the voltage going through his body.

You are a sorry lot indead.

To : TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ

You seem to be biased towards the Roman Catholic strain of the religious virus. So here goes:

According to the opinion of the Roman Catholic Council of Trent:

“I likewise profess that in the Mass a true, proper and propitiatory sacrifice is offered to God on behalf of the living and the dead, and that the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ is truly, really, and substantially present in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist, and that there is a change of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into blood; and this change the Catholic Church calls transubstantiation. I also profess that the whole and entire Christ and a true sacrament is received under each separate species.”

What is with drinking the blood of and eating the flesh of Christ all about? The bread you eat actually turns into the flesh of Christ literally? Heck man this is sick cannibalistic, demented lunacy.

“To the contrary, many things can be determined in the future, the weathermen do it every day.”

Are you trying to cloak your arguments in the respectability of science? Is this not just a teeny weenie bit ironical TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ?

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
MARCUS PRYOR :
SPINOZA:

IRT:
Hmmm, citing the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia as a proof of god's omniscience?

ANS:
What does time have to do with God’s Omniscience and his Prescience? You would have know that God does not exist in time if you had read the proof of God from motion by Aristotle or the five proofs of God from Aristotle you would not be having the problems you're having.

I was not citing the CE “per se” but only as a source to Aquinas and Aristotle. If you had a better sources, than you should had used them to refute Aristotle and Aquinas.

IRT:
How about citing an independent source of reality and truth??

Do you mean like the materialist and atheistic independent sources you cited in Schillebeeckx and Spinoza.

Isn’t Aristotle independent enough for you. You rail against the link but you do not dispute the analysis of Aristotle or Aquinas. Do not dispute the source, dispute the analogy.

Moreover, you call the Father of Logic’s proof of God a "baiting of the question"; did you not read his thesis on “baiting the question.” He is the one who invented the term "circular arguments." I gave you the reference did you read it?

IRT:
And read Schillebeeckx's words again slowly. They fit the Singularity's (or Mother Nature's) gifts/attributes of Free Will and Future. Omniscience does not.

ANS:
First Mother Nature only exists in fairytales. If you mean by Mother Nature the Natural Law, it does not exist as an entity in itself. It exists in the things created by God. In man it's called the Natural Moral Law and Human Nature. Only the soul of man has the attribute of freewill not any material entities of the Universe.

If you are going to quote Spinoza know what his philosophy contends and portends. You are talking in riddles or the ethereal (mumbo jumbo) philosophy you accuse Christians as using, what ever that may be.

Moreover, the Natural Laws don’t give attributes or Freewill. They have no attributes or Freewill to give; that is the prerogative of the Creator who endowed the Universe with his Natural Laws and man with human nature, Laws are that which bind things that are ordered from a higher authority. The Natural Moral Laws govern the behavior of man.

IRT:
"Christians must give up a perverse, unhealthy, and inhuman doctrine of predestination without in so doing making God the great scapegoat of history."

ANS:
What sources have you been consulting, certainly not the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Please define what you mean by Predestination.

If you mean by predestination that man is not morally responsible for his acts and that his destination is preordained, then you are again misinformed.

What predestination means in the Catholic Faith is that since God is Prescient, he knows the past, the present, and the future because he does not exist in time. Nor does He cause a sinner to go to Hell or to Heaven; that is the individual choice of man. It's call Moral responsibility.

Now the full meaning of Predestination by Catholicism is in the link below. So please define what you mean by predestination for me.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm

IRT
"Nothing is determined in advance: in
nature there is chance and determinism; in the world of human activity there is possibility of free choices.”

ANS:
To the contrary, many things can be determined in the future, the weathermen do it every day.

Second, you claim to put all your faith in Empirical Science and then apparently contradict yourself. What do Empirical Science do but formulate and predict the actions and phenomena of things.

The Universe is not operated by chance, but on the DETERMINED Laws of Nature. Hence, using your illustration, 1+1 = 2. That will always be so because it is a dictate of reason.

Predications are what Empirical Science is all about, viz. DETERMINING the formulas that determine how the material objects of the Universe act. If things acted by chance there would be no order in the Universe; on the contrary, all things act according to their ordained nature and are ordered.

IRT
“Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."

ANS:
There is no historical future for God. He doesn’t exist in time. Again, you have no sense about which you speak. First, you must define God before you try to malign Him. Second, if you do not understand the proofs of God than you are talking gibberish.

Namely, if you can give a logical refutation of Aristotle’s or Aquinas’s proofs and attributes of God start doing so. If you cannot defend your beliefs, your beliefs are meaningless. Merely making empty statements prove nothing.

IRT:
“i.e. No one, not even God/The Singularity/Jesus/ Mohammed/Isaiah can prophesy since that would violate the God-given gifts of Free Will and Future.”

ANS:
Define who has freewill. What does it mean to you, and who is giving it.

What gets to me about religious wing-nuts is that they lay claim to social morality. This is an absurd and fantastical belief, even perverse and psychotic.
For goodness sake how many examples does one need to give of “never, never land” beliefs that have caused immeasurable damage to society?

Does religious belief cause blindness, making you unable to read, does it make you deaf, does it remove your ability to make sense of words and enter into meaningful dialog, does it erode rationality and make you hostile to reason, does it impart the virtues of love? It does seem so to me.

And my ex girlfriend wanted to put our possible future children into a religious school and brainwash their little young minds! I will miss her though.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ: wrote:

“…base your life on the empirical sciences and make reservations to retire in the loony bin.”

Another view would be that of Robert Pirsig:

"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion."

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
MARCUS PRYOR :
SPINOZA:

IRT:
"Spinoza wrote about this in the 17 century. He stated that church leaders use all kinds of arcane arguments in support of their positions."

ANS:
Spinoza: “Existence and necessity, however, cannot be deduced from the nature of finite things. We must therefore conceive of a Being (God) necessarily existing and necessarily acting, from which all else follows of necessity.”

Thus, Spinoza denies our knowledge of reality. What an absurdity, if you cannot know reality, then you can not know anything.

"As the GREAT Buddhist dialectician Nagarjuna says, 'The nature of Reality is Emptiness and is co-dependent, mere appearance [a.k.a. Spinoza]. It is neither real nor unreal, but there is not a single thing to be found anywhere that is truly independent or self-existing.'"

Hence, we cannot know what really exist, and knowledge becomes infused, an ethereal nature that you incidentally ridiculed and yet unwittingly rely on through your quoting of Spinoza as a rationale for your beliefs.

Spinoza, “It follows necessarily that the individual acts of knowledge proceed in some manner from God's own thought (the soul therefore is no substance), that the nature of THE SOUL IS AN INDIVIDUAL INSTINCT towards perfection (comatus in suo esse.” So all of your thoughts are God’s expressions and hence, a denial of all moral responsibility and prelude to predetermination. Ridiculous!

"Christianity takes its stand on the consciousness of individual personality, which consciousness is a distinct deliverance of our very highest faculties, growing more and more explicit with the strengthening of our moral and intellectual being.

In Christianity, consciousness is emphatic, as against the figments of a fallaciously abstract reason, in asserting the self-subsistence (and at the same time the finitude) of our being. Namely, it declares that we are independent inasmuch as we are truly persons or selves, not mere attributes or adjectives, while at the same time, by exhibiting our manifold limitations, it directs us to a higher Cause on which our being depends, God.

Such is the Catholic doctrine on the nature, unity, substantiality, spirituality, and origin of the soul. It is the only system consistent with Christian faith, and, we may add, morals, for both."

If you’ve relied on Spinoza state your case, you ultimately end up being a Communist, and a victim of a self-destructive ideology."

As to 1+1= 2, Mathematics, nor any of the Empirical Sciences, explain knowledge because they knowledge that exists in the intellect and are not a separate entity. Nor can the Empirical Sciences measure or define love, charity, honesty, virtue and vice, the necessary essential things that matter in the proper behavior of human life and society.

Science can help form the Nuclear Bomb, but Ethics and Moral must determine its use. Empirical Science must depend on the higher sciences that confirm and establish the reality of what they observe and study. Hence, if the scientists can not believe what he observes is real and has faith in his beliefs, what purpose is his knowledge.

Nor can atheists and materialists answer man’s natural search for meaning in his life and his endless search for complete happiness."

Empirical Science is a means to the achievement of the purpose of human life, not the purpose of human life. As said, base your life on the empirical sciences and make reservations to retire in the loony bin.

"Evil is the lack of Good; the Good is that which exist. That which exists is God, who is Pure Existence; His Essence is His Existence. Therefore, God can not be evil since He lacks nothing."

This is a master piece and a glimps into the mind of the delusional. God’ logic is clearly mysterious. I wonder if I turn my laptop upside down and try and read it that way …

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
MARCUS PRYOR :
SPINOZA:

IRT:
"Spinoza wrote about this in the 17 century. He stated that church leaders use all kinds of arcane arguments in support of their positions."

ANS:
Spinoza is a conglomeration of arcane ideas a malfeasance of Jewish, Christian principles that end in, monism, materialism, and negative rationalism.

Spinoza, "in the late 20th century Europe demonstrated a greater philosophical interest in Spinoza, often from a left-wing or Marxist” Wikipedia

Subsequently, those who Spinoza influenced are representative of the social destructions of society. They are embodied in such luminaries as Hegel, Marx, Schopenhauer, Fichte, Leibniz, and Kant. These are the representative materialist philosophies of the Skeptics and Pessimism. (Ibid)

“Spinoza's doctrine was pure materialism, because all Nature and God are said to be nothing but extended substance.” Spinozism intellectualism facilitates the contributes to Pantheism, Deism, Neutral Monism, Intellectual skepticism and a political society derived from power, not contract.” Ibid

Hence, Spinoza creates the material state that is personified in such luminaries as the USSR, Chinam North Korea, and all the Communists States the have been an opprobrious scourge upon humanity because they are adverse to reality of human nature and its inalienable rights.

Spinoza is a materialist whose god is a part of nature. Nowhere in history has such social ideology succeeded. His philosophy is an invitation to despair. It has rained down without exception the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, famine, pestilence, war, and death, upon all the regimes that have embrace it.

Materialists want two worlds. They want to bask in the privileges that Christianity confirms and offers and also to act in an alternate world of irrationality that succors to their proclivities. Hence, they claim such rights as freedom of speech but materialism rails against. Hence free speech comes under the auspices of the State.

They want to own property, but Communism states that all property belongs to the State. Man becomes an extension of the State. “Only in the State are justice and law, injustice and transgression conceivable. The individual, in order to be able to live according to reason, must surrender his rights to the community.” Hence, man exists for the fulfillment of the State. In Christianity the State exist for man.

The Materialists want the social order that Christianity brings to society, but they inveigh against all the Christian principles that convey that order. And so, the materialists want stability of the family, the foundation of all society, yet they foster the right of fornication, adultery, infidelity, homosexuality, and gay marriage that fulminates against the family.

Thus, their ideology justifies abortion, the death of the unborn. who is the fruit of conjugal love in marriage, an institution that ensures the well being of its children. Abortion tears down the posterity of the State and contradicts its purpose and existence.

Materialism is the gateway to the Sexual Revolution and the Culture of Death because Materialism can’t explain Morality and Ethics. It make Morality a product of man’s whims and proclivities. Though Spinoza spent the crowning achievement of his life attempting to write a book of Ethics, he undermined its authority by undermining the reasons for Morality, God.

Consequently, Materialism nurtures a right to Homosexuality and, gay marriage and Abortion, the destruction of the family, totalitarianism, and despotism. Hence, Materialists, impugn the progeny of the State and all who inhabit it. Materialists want all the inalienable rights God gives man professed in our Constitution but vilify the basis for these rights, God.

Spinozism when pushed to its conclusion is a philosophy of materialism, is a means for entering the philosopher of pessimism and depression.
‘
“According to Spinoza there are no universal notions.” That is a direct attack on knowledge.
Hence, “Existence and necessity, however, CANNOT be deduced from the nature of finite things.” Thus, Spinoza denies our knowledge of reality. What an absurdity in that Spinoza denies reality though he claims just nature is reality.

Of course, such belief inadvertently denies all responsibility and all human acts become predetermined by this principle that all thought proceeds from God who is a principle and not a substance.

Thus, morality becomes what anyone wishes it to be, and we led to such manifestations of Communism, Fascism, Monism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and every kind of irrationality that denies reality.

Therefore, Spinozism is a presage for self-destruction and social suicide. The failures of materialism is unequivocally manifested in history.

'Evil is the lack of Good; the Good is that which exist. That which exists is God, who is Pure Existence; His Essence is His Existence. Therefore, God can not be evil since He lacks nothing.'

wow, i never thought of it like that... it makes everything so clear, where can i join up?

only joking

'Evil is the lack of Good; the Good is that which exist. That which exists is God, who is Pure Existence; His Essence is His Existence. Therefore, God can not be evil since He lacks nothing.'

wow, i never thought of it like that... it makes everything so clear, where can i join up?

only joking

'Evil is the lack of Good; the Good is that which exist. That which exists is God, who is Pure Existence; His Essence is His Existence. Therefore, God can not be evil since He lacks nothing.'

wow, i never thought of it like that... it makes everything so clear, where can i join up?

only joking

he he. christians are funny. theyre always so excited about sending people to hell, but pretending to be so sad about it.

he he. christians are funny. theyre always so excited about sending people to hell, but pretending to be so sad about it.

Is America so religious that even some ‘atheists’ believe in a magical supernatural entity that hides in the dark expanses of the cosmos? This makes as much sense as voting a man into public office that claims the ability to have two way conversations with a deity. The Bush father and son duo were not your finest moment.

Come on America, religion is really silly, superficial nonsense, the world is watching you and unfortunately as a super power your choice in a president has an affect on us all. Yes that’s right, religious, intellectually lazy American citizens indirectly influence the lives of people all around the globe.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ :

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
CONCERNED THE CHRISTIAN NOW LIBERATED
“IS GOD OMNIPOTENT?”
That God Is Omniscient Or Possesses The Most Perfect Knowledge Of All Things, Follows From His Infinite Perfection.
_____

Pfui. A "perfect" being would be utterly static -- otherwise its perfection could not be maintained. ANY deviation from perfection results in IMperfection.

A perfect being could not even entertain a thought -- not if it were to remain perfect.

HOWEVER, if a being is IMPERFECT -- like ourselves -- why worship it? Why give it added credence at all?

Steven-

Thank you for pointing out the Scientific Musings website.

"Breathless with the prodigiality of life, united by the epic story of cosmic evolution. Feeling oneself part of that story, swept along by the unfolding mystery, a wind of atoms forged in stars that blows though creation, cycled and re-cycled, me and the spider mite, every cell of us spinning and weaving, ceaslessly, the four-letter code of the DNA like the notes of Beethoven's Ode to Joy."

Now THAT is my type of scientist! Definitely worthy of being added to my "Favorites". Wonder what he would think of the noosphere.

Blessed be, Steven. :-)

Wiccan:

Thanks for your reply. Chet often writes things that, when reading them, and having read some of your postings, I think of you two as being kindred spirits.

Swing by his site every once in awhile--he's definitely an inspiration to me and starts my day off well.

Have a great week!

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ,

Hmmm, citing the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia as a proof of god's omniscience? How about citing an independent source of reality and truth??

And read Schillebeeckx's words again slowly. They fit the Singularity's (or Mother Nature's) gifts/attributes of Free Will and Future. Omniscience does not.

"Christians must give up a perverse, unhealthy and inhuman doctrine of predestination without in so doing making God the great scapegoat of history" .

"Nothing is determined in advance: in
nature there is chance and determinism; in the world of human activity there is possibility of free choices.

Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."

i.e. No one, not even God/The Singularity/Jesus/ Mohammed/Isaiah can prophesy since that would violate the God-given gifts of Free Will and Future.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
CONCERNED THE CHRISTIAN NOW LIBERATED
“IS GOD OMNIPOTENT?”

IRT
“Hmmm, an omniscient god?
Not according the famous contemporary theologian,”

"Edward Schillebeeckx.
To wit:
from his book, Church: The Human Story of God,
Crossroad, 1993, p.91 (softcover)

"Christians (et al) must give up a perverse, unhealthy and inhuman doctrine of predestination without in so doing making God the great scapegoat of history."

"Nothing is determined in advance: in
nature there is chance and determinism; in the world of human activity there is possibility of free choices. Therefore the historical future is not known even to God, otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women.”

ANS:
You might try a real Theologian like Aquinas, in the link below and try refuting him with Schillebeeckx.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm#I

Divine knowledge
Description of the Divine Knowledge

That God Is Omniscient Or Possesses The Most Perfect Knowledge Of All Things, Follows From His Infinite Perfection.

In the first place, He knows and comprehends Himself fully and adequately, and in the next place He knows all created objects and comprehends their finite and contingent mode of being.

Hence He knows them individually or singularly in their finite multiplicity, knows everything possible as well as actual; knows what is bad as well as what is good. Everything, in a word, which to our finite minds signifies perfection and completeness of knowledge may be predicated of Divine omniscience, and it is further to be observed that it is on Himself alone that God depends for His knowledge.

To make Him in any way dependent on creatures for knowledge of created objects would destroy His infinite perfection and supremacy. Hence it is in His eternal, unchangeable, comprehensive knowledge of Himself or of His own infinite being that God knows creatures and their acts, whether there is question of what is actual or merely possible.

Indeed, Divine knowledge itself is really identical with Divine essence, as are all the attributes and acts of God; but according to our finite modes of thought we feel the need of conceiving them distinctly and of representing the Divine essence as the medium or mirror in which the Divine intellect sees all truth.

Moreover, although the act of Divine knowledge is infinitely simple in itself, we feel the need of further distinctions -- not as regards the knowledge in itself, but as regards the multiplicity of finite objects which it embraces.

Hence, the universally recognized distinction between the knowledge of vision (scientia visionis) and that of simple intelligence (simplicis intelligentiae), and the famous controversy regarding the scientia media. We shall briefly explain this distinction and the chief difficulties involved in this controversy.”

It’s explained in the above link.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
CONCERNED THE CHRISTIAN NOW LIBERATED
“IS GOD OMNIPOTENT?”

IRT
“Hmmm, an omniscient god?
Not according the famous contemporary theologian,”

"Edward Schillebeeckx.
To wit:
from his book, Church: The Human Story of God,
Crossroad, 1993, p.91 (softcover)

"Christians (et al) must give up a perverse, unhealthy and inhuman doctrine of predestination without in so doing making God the great scapegoat of history."

"Nothing is determined in advance: in
nature there is chance and determinism; in the world of human activity there is possibility of free choices. Therefore the historical future is not known even to God, otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women.”

ANS:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm#I

Divine knowledge
Description of the Divine Knowledge

That God Is Omniscient Or Possesses The Most Perfect Knowledge Of All Things, Follows From His Infinite Perfection.

In the first place, He knows and comprehends Himself fully and adequately, and in the next place He knows all created objects and comprehends their finite and contingent mode of being.

Hence He knows them individually or singularly in their finite multiplicity, knows everything possible as well as actual; knows what is bad as well as what is good. Everything, in a word, which to our finite minds signifies perfection and completeness of knowledge may be predicated of Divine omniscience, and it is further to be observed that it is on Himself alone that God depends for His knowledge.

To make Him in any way dependent on creatures for knowledge of created objects would destroy His infinite perfection and supremacy. Hence it is in His eternal, unchangeable, comprehensive knowledge of Himself or of His own infinite being that God knows creatures and their acts, whether there is question of what is actual or merely possible.

Indeed, Divine knowledge itself is really identical with Divine essence, as are all the attributes and acts of God; but according to our finite modes of thought we feel the need of conceiving them distinctly and of representing the Divine essence as the medium or mirror in which the Divine intellect sees all truth.

Moreover, although the act of Divine knowledge is infinitely simple in itself, we feel the need of further distinctions -- not as regards the knowledge in itself, but as regards the multiplicity of finite objects which it embraces.

Hence, the universally recognized distinction between the knowledge of vision (scientia visionis) and that of simple intelligence (simplicis intelligentiae), and the famous controversy regarding the scientia media. We shall briefly explain this distinction and the chief difficulties involved in this controversy.”

It’s explained in the above link.

The attempted defenses of god belief are mostly built on circular reasoning. God, in his "bible" says he exists, so therefore he must exist. Further arguments get very convoluted. There are muddled attempts to use ethereal logic which no one understands, including themselves.

Spinoza wrote about this in the 17 century. He stated that church leaders use all kinds of arcane arguments in support of their positions.

I use a simple; scientific approach. 1+1=2. If you want to prove god exists, use empircal evidence; not spurious logic games.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
PHILLIP C. SMITH, PH.D.
EVIL:
ORGANIZED RELIGION

.IRT:
“I believe that for many the issue is not about whether or not there is a God but rather an objection to organized religion and many of its stated beliefs and practices. So many here in the eastern part of Germany either do not believe in God or have adopted nature and beauty as their source of worship.”

ANS:
It would be incongruously irrational to be against organized religion that is personified in the Catholic Church. Christianity was instituted for man to obtain eternal happiness.

If you were on a ship leaving Europe headed to America, and the ship that had some 26,000 captains guiding the ship according to their own directions and all the directions were different, then getting to America would be improbable if not impossible.

That is what happens with out organization, no one is on the same page. Hence, we have some 26,000 to 35,000 different captains in an attempt to be Christian, with their own different direction, and attempting to go to the same place with contradictory itinerates.

Man’s soul is immortal; his nature is human; therefore, the destiny for each man is the same, viz. the purpose in life is the same for all humanity as is God's Church.

Hence, God gives man the Natural Moral Law that governs his proper behavior. These Laws are part of man’s human nature imbued in his conscience, and revealed to man through God's works, His Scriptures, and His Church.

As the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence state all men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights. These rights are given by God so that man has the ability to achieve his immortality in heaven.

The Catholic Church created by Jesus, is given the command to “Go forth and teach all nation.” If the Church were not organized in its mission and teachings, it would be in chaos.

There are today, some 26,000 to 35,000 different denominations. These denominations have their own direction, and are a cacophony of contradictions.

However, God is not a contradiction, therefore, neither is His Church. If a church is not organized in its teachings and beliefs, man will be prone to doubt them, and belief would become weakened and subject to error. The teachings would be just merely the ideas of man’s opinions and optional.

Subsequently, we see all kinds of religions with their own doctrines and their own directions based on the fallible reasoning of man without the concurrence of God’s protection of the truth.

Since God, who is Omniscient and Prescient, knows man is subject to error, Jesus sent the Paraclete to protect His Church from error in its teachings and doctrines. It would be irrational for God, knowing the fallibility of human reason, to leave His Church subject to such error. However, God is not irrational.

As we can clearly see, a church without the continuous protection of God has continuously changed its doctrines to conform to the consensus of man. Truth can not be what it isn't.

In contrast, the Catholic Church stands as a beacon of truth throughout the world in Her unchangeable doctrines and beliefs as a buffer against the ravages of the vagrant errors of mankind.

Consequently, Jesus, who is God, established a Church to succor to the needs of man and guide him in order that man may achieve his eternal destiny.

The truth cannot be a cacophony of voices of contradiction in churches that contradict each other's teachings and beliefs, in part and in whole. Truth cannot contradict truth.

IRT:
"Of one thing, I am quite certain from observation. Those who believe in a loving, caring God handle life reversals better generally than those who don't."

ANS:
A recent survey showed that married couples who took their faith seriously in the Catholic Church had only two percent of divorces. Catholics who did not take their faith seriously divorced about the same rate as the national average in the mid forty percent.

Hence, God tells His people do not worship false idols they do not see, or speak, or hear the truth. They do not see or speak with their hearts, but I your God in Heaven with Divine love, compassion, and mercy have done all things for you, and my works will bring you true freedom if you believe in Me.

Ps 115: 3cf.
“But our God is in heaven: He hath done all things whatsoever He would. The idols of the Gentiles [of the non-believers] are silver and gold [the vanities of the world], the works of the hands of men. They have mouths and speak not: they have eyes and see not.

They have ears and hear not: they have noses and smell not. They have hands and feel not: they have feet and walk not: neither shall they cry out through their throat. Let them that make them become like unto them: and all such as trust in them."

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
PHILLIP C. SMITH, PH.D.
EVIL:

IRT:
*The evil carried out in the name of religion.

ANS:
Evil is the lack of Good; the Good is that which exist. That which exists is God, who is Pure Existence; His Essence is His Existence. Therefore, God can not be evil since He lacks nothing.

There are two kinds of evil, moral and physical. Moral evil occurs when man turns away from God and becomes a God unto himself. Two Biblical illustrations of this are Satan and Adam, who were done in because of their pride.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2084.htm

Some say pride is to be taken in three ways. First, as denoting inordinate desire to excel, and thus it is a special sin.

Secondly, as denoting actual contempt of God, to the effect of not being subject to His commandment; and thus, they say, it is a generic sin.

Thirdly, as denoting an inclination to this contempt, owing to the corruption of nature. In this sense they say that it is the beginning of every sin, and that it differs from covetousness, because covetousness regards sin as turning towards the mutable good by which sin is, as it were, nourished and fostered, for which reason covetousness is called the 'root.'

Whereas pride regards sin as turning away from God, to Whose commandment man refuses to be subject, for which reason it is called the 'beginning,' because the beginning of evil consists in turning away from God."

Separated from God, man establishes his own religion of materialism manifested in atheism, agnosticism, and paganism; all three are antitheses to Truth, who is God.

The individualist who claims his own autonomy independent of God, says, “Don’t force your morality on me,” unbeknown to him that the morality being forced on him is God’s and the autonomous has no choice except to abide according to the Moral Law or violate it and reap the consequences.

These Natural Moral Laws are forced on him because they are inherent in man’s nature. Because God gave man freewill, man can choose to violate them and suffer the consequences.

Hence, one who makes his own moral laws irrespective of the Natural Moral Laws that govern him, invites social disorder. The Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Maos of the world made their own moral laws and the Four Horsemen of Apocalypses, famine, death pestilence and war came upon them.

IRT:
“The belief by many in miracles in a world of science.”

ANS:
A miracle is supernatural intervention over the Natural Law. Man cannot create a miracle because he is a natural being in a natural world and is bound by the Natural Law.

Again, man by his inordinate pride believes he is God. He does not create miracles but only discovers the Laws of Nature and the Natural Moral Laws created by God, The Supreme Law Giver.

Steven-

That was a though-provoking article.
Humans have always had the sacred groves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_grove). Usually when the culture changes, the new culture adopts the grove as its sacred space.

On another thread I was assuring Chris Everett that I had the minimum daily requirement of intelligence while still reveling in the Divine. I gave a short description of the Wiccan worldview that the Divine is immanent in every physical reality we experience. Another commenter, I think it was Gerry, said that if the word "awe" was substituted for the word "Divine", it wouldn't be far off from what atheists feel when experiencing the majesty of Nature.

Chet wrote:

"Can -- or should -- nature be re-enchanted? Can we -- or should we -- recover the sense of ambient mystery that was the wellspring of religion?"

The culture of materialism has taken the sacred spaces, but no longer considers them sacred. My answers to the above questions is "Yes- and quickly!" That sense of "ambient mystery" may evoke worship from believers or awe from atheists, but I think it is necessary for the well-being of the Earth. You wouldn't pollute something you hold sacred.

I would believe that a God exists when I see that God wiping out from the face of Earth all religious nuts, starting with the American Taleban, the Evangelical Christians. The American Taleban, the Evangelical Christians do not blow-up ancient statues; instead they poison young minds against science.

IN REPLY TO
PHILLIP C. SMITH, PH.D.
ORGANIZED BELIEF AND SIN:

IRT:
“As a social scientist I would be interested in your assessing why people don't believe. The geneticist-physician Francis S. Collins indicated four common issues that non-believers bring up relative to religion. As a believer in God, I am aware of effective answers for all of these.”

ANS:
Nothing makes sense to those who cannot see the light of truth when they are encapsulated in the world of darkness thinking the darkness is the truth. They are predisposed to the darkness by their own proclivities. Their passions and egocentrism has overpowered their reason and so they have a hard time seeing the truth because they refuse to seek it.

They only way they have any hope of not going to Hell is for others to appeal to God to intercede with His graces to make the truth known to them. And so Christians are urged to pray daily for the reparation of sinners.

Religious have formed such orders in monasteries and religious enclaves for specifically praying for these people. They pray daily for the morally blind that God might enlighten and forgive them.

St. Monica’s son, St. Augustine of Hippo, had become a Manichean. She prayed for him for 17 years. “There is no more pathetic story in the annals of the Saints than that of Monica pursuing her wayward son to Rome, wither he had gone by stealth; when she arrived he had already gone to Milan, but she followed him.

Here she found St. Ambrose and through him she ultimately had the joy of seeing Augustine yield, after seventeen years of resistance. Augustine was baptized in the church of St. John the Baptist at Milan.

He probably was one of the greatest sinners at the time, but he became a renowned Doctor of Theology in the Church because of his mother's constant prayer for him.”

There is always some hope for the morally blind. Hence, Mary Magdalene the renowned prostitute was touched by the grace of God and has been memorialized for all time as was the Good Thief on the Cross, who was crucified with Jesus, was touched. So it is written that nothing is impossible with God, who although is Just, is also Merciful, and nothing is possible without Him.

IRT:
*Religion is just wish fulfillment."

ANS:
I would wonder if Collins could answer this question. Why is there an innate feeling for a Creator, for a destiny of perfection, a desire for the Good in all mankind?

The attractive force of God is not just a wish but also a natural innate desire inherent in all mankind.

“The consideration of certain characteristics of the human mind reveals a purpose which can be realized only by the soul's continuing in the possession of a conscious life after death.

Firstly, there is in the mind of man, as distinguished from all the lower animals, the capacity to look back to the indefinite past and forward to the distant future, the impulse to project itself in imagination beyond the limits of space and time, to rise to the conception of endless duration.

There is an ever-increasing yearning for knowledge, a craving for an ever fuller possession of truth, which expands and grows with every advance of science.

There is the character of unfinishedness in our mental life and development. There is the contrast between the capabilities of the human intellect and its present destiny, "between the immensity of man's outlook and the limitations of his actual horizon.

There is the contrast between the splendor of his ideals and the insignificance of his attainments" (Marshall), which all demand a future existence unless the human mind is to be a wasteful failure.

Again, there is the craving of the human will, the insatiate desire of happiness, universal throughout the race. This cannot be appeased by any temporal joy.

Finally, there is the ethical argument. Human reason affirms that the performance of duty is both right and reasonable in the fullest sense, that it cannot be better in the end for the man who violates the moral law than for him who observes it."

That is not wishful thinking, but an obvious fact.

I would believe that a God exists when I see that God wiping out all religious nuts frm the face of Earth. And that God should start with the American Taleban, the Evangelical Christians. The Evangelical Christians do not blow-up ancientstatues; instaed they poison young minds against science.

minor green no boat wood stone usa juicy joke

Of Faith and Belief

Belief is involuntary. We make up our minds as to what we believe based on evidence and previous knowledge. Faith is a volitional act of loyalty to the subject of one;s beliefs. For some that means being loyal to God. For some, that means being loyal to the fact there is none.

The rest of us "beleivers" waiver in the middle. We have a good idea of our own Cosmology but we haven't decided to commit or don't feel as if we need to.

As for me, a Wiccan, I fully admit that I have no proof whatsoever of any Gods. But i can prove that Nature exists, moreso than anything else can be proven. Unless we bring up Hume, and I won't. So I revel in the fact that I have found a good idea. One that works for me in my life. One that makes logical sense that I may well live with the rest of my life. But I am not married to the idea of being Wiccan, just as few Atheists I assume are married to the idea of Atheism.

We just are, ever changing, ever thoughtful people living in this universe magickal or not magickal. Happy to be alive.

"What do you make of this?"

You're a liar. A=lack of theist=god. Atheists=people who don't believe in God.

Sheerly by the definition of the word, it is impossible to be both an atheist and believe in God. Go back to eigth grade English, please.

"What do you make of this?"

You're a liar. A=lack of theist=god. Atheists=people who don't believe in God.

Sheerly by the definition of the word, it is impossible to be both an atheist and believe in God. Go back to eigth grade English, please.

"What do you make of this?"

You're a liar. A=lack of theist=god. Atheists=people who don't believe in God.

Sheerly by the definition of the word, it is impossible to be both an atheist and believe in God. Go back to eigth grade English, please.

"Nothing is determined in advance: in
nature there is chance and determinism; in the world of human activity there is possibility of free choices. Therefore the historical future is not known even to God, otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women." - Edward Schillebeeckx.

Nothing is more malleable than xtian doctrine. If the facts don't meet dogma, change the dogma. The "god of the gaps" has reared it's ugly hed again.

Hmmm, an omniscient god?

Not according the famous contemporary theologian, Edward Schillebeeckx.

To wit:

from his book, Church: The Human Story of God,
Crossroad, 1993, p.91 (softcover)

"Christians (et al) must give up a perverse, unhealthy and inhuman doctrine of predestination without in so doing making God the great scapegoat of history."

"Nothing is determined in advance: in
nature there is chance and determinism; in the world of human activity there is possibility of free choices. Therefore the historical future is not known even to God, otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."

[WARNING - LOW ON DOGMA, HIGH ON LOVE]
To Stephen:
You seem surprised that Christians do not march in automatonic lock step on all issues, and that we struggle with many of the same issues you do.
(I hate to generalize, maybe you do not struggle with any issues?)
I tend to dislike polls, as they merely reflect what the individual is thinking at the moment, which may be far from their core beliefs. But since we're talking polls here, it is no surprise to me that people struggle with the issues listed. As you mentioned, the poll seems a bit weak, with leading questions and limited options. I add that such polls are misleading since they try to measure some concepts that are difficult for a lot of people (more on that below).
A lot of people perceive Christians as being perfect (in their own eyes at least), not subject to doubts, political manipulation, addictions, diseases, bad behavior, and so forth. Far from it - we are as human as anyone and imperfect (a few Christians forget this from time to time, unfortunately), in sore need of forgiveness for our behavior as often as are non-believers.
Now comes the hard part.
Let me try to explain the inexplicable: While not perfect, we have contact with the perfect, and the promise of perfection, or at least forgiveness for our imperfections, which gives us hope. This leads to (or from) belief, something that in the purely scientific world would be difficult to measure. That's ok, we don't measure up ourselves, so why try to measure? Nothing amuses me so much as scientists trying to measure how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Think of our belief more as a compass than a magnetometer, showing direction rather than speed, duration, intensity or other measurable quanta.
I am sorry you feel like you can not share that. (I'M NOT SORRY!! you respond, indignently) So be it. I'll continue to pray for you and your atheist intelligensia in hopes that you might not be lost in the end. If I can not meet you and talk with you - not lie, not coerce, not threaten, not belittle, not sneer, not hate, not ... well, you get the picture - I'll have to pray for you, and time's a-wastin' so I'll get at it.
God bless you and all you do.
Pete Porzitski in Nashville

Sorry about the "anonymous" label in my last post.

Iving Krakow states:

"The proofs are in the links below."

What a bunch of gobbledegook. If "proof" means obvious obscufation and ridiculous "nonreason", then you have proved the existence of "god".

If you are trying to win a debate, then don't leave people scratshing their heads. Part of your "proof" is asserting that good can come out of evil. That is simply a way of explaining the benevolence of a "god" who can allow such obvious suffering. How can good come out of evil? To say that good can follow evil is not the same as saying that good comes from evil.

As a social scientist I would be interested in your assessing why people don't believe. The geneticist-physician Francis S. Collins indicated four common issues that non-believers bring up relative to religion. As a believer in God, I am aware of effective answers for all of these:

*Religion is just wish fulfillment.

*The evil carried out in the name of religion.

*The presence of evil and bad things if there is indeed a God.

The belief by many in miracles in a world of science

I believe that for many the issue is not about whether or not there is a God but rather an objection to organized religion and many of its stated beliefs and practices. So many here in the eastern part of Germany either do not believe in God or have adopted nature and beauty as their source of worship.

Of one thing I am quite certain from observation. Those who believe in a loving, caring God handle life reversals better generally than those who don't.

Phillip C. Smith, Ph.D.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
IRVING KRAKOW :
FIRST: NOT ONE SINGLE STATEMENT ABOUT A SUPERNATURAL BEING IS KNOWN TO BE TRUE.

IRT:
“Having taught philosophy for 35 years, I am better acquainted than most people with the fact that most people don't understand their own beliefs at all. The bulk of the comments here reveal that fact very effectively.

“Right now, I want to state two facts that all people who are concerned with religion should face.

So why do perhaps three billion people over the world continue to speak about such a being?”

ANS:
Have you ever considered taking up a new occupation.

I’ll just mention a few of the multitude of statements that are true about God. One He exists, 2. He created Heaven and Earth, 3 Jesus was God, 4. God is the Unmoved Mover, 5. He is Eternal, 6. Pure Act, 7. Omniscient, 8.Omnipotent, 9. Prescient, and 10. Created man to His image and likeness. They are all provable from reason and can be believed.

The proofs are in the links below.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1039.htm

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
IN REPLY TO ALL ATHEIEST
A PROOF OF GOD
FROM REASON

IRT:
Irving Krakow
IRT:
ANONOMOUS
THERE ARE MANY PROOFS FOR GOD HERE'S ONE:

The Unmoved Mover in Physics

"Aristotle resolves the problem of how something can become something else inherited from his predecessors by differentiating between the potentiality (dunamis) and actuality (entelecheia) inhering in a substratum or matter. He defines motion (kinêsis) as "the fulfillment of what exists potentially, insofar as it exists potentially" (Physics 3.1; 201a 10-12).

A thing is in a state of actuality, meaning that it is what it is, but it also is potentially something else. Its potentiality is, as it were, an attribute of thing as actual. Aristotle explains further, "It is the fulfilment of what is potential when it is already fully real and operates not as itself but as movable, that is motion. What I mean by 'as' is this: Bronze is potentially a statue.

But it is not the fulfilment of bronze as bronze which is motion. For 'to be bronze' and 'to be a certain potentiality' are not the same" (Physics 3.1; 201a). The actuality of a thing as movable, that is to say, its potentiality as moved, is motion.

Potentiality inheres in a thing and it is the thing as this potentiality in the process of being actualized that can be said to be in motion. For example, a green tomato has the potentiality to be a red tomato.

The actualization of its potentiality to be red is motion, in particular, alteration from being green to being red. Aristotle explains further,

We can define motion as the fulfilment of the movable as movable, the cause of the attribute being contact with what can move so that the mover is also acted on. The mover or agent will always be the vehicle of a form, either a 'this' or 'such', which, when it acts, will be the source and cause of the change, e.g. the full-formed man begets man from what is potentially man. (Physics 3.2; 202a)

A thing as movable is moved by contact with an efficient cause, or a mover. The mover as moved becomes the means by which a form comes to inhere in another moving and then moved thing. It is the actualization of the thing as movable through its contact with a moved efficient cause that is motion. Aristotle would agree with Parmenides and Melissos that being does not come from non-being in an unqualified sense.

But he asserts that being comes from non-being in a qualified sense as the actualization of a potentiality; potentiality is qualified non-being. In this way one can say that something both comes and does not come from something else: it comes from the potentiality inherent in something but does not come from what is actually existing.

From his considerations of the nature of motion in Physics, in Book 8, Aristotle concludes that there must be a logically first unmoved mover in order to explain all other motion. In Physics 8.1, he argues that motion is eternal.

Motion cannot begin without the prior existence of something to impart motion in another thing, so that there will always be something in motion, since something at rest cannot cause motion in another thing.

In addition, if motion were not eternal, then time would not have always existed, since time is the measure of motion; but, according to Aristotle, no one would be willing to say that time has not always been in existence.

Nor can motion cease, since to do so something must cause it to cease, but then the thing that caused motion to cease would require something to cause its cessation and the process would continue ad infinitum.

Aristotle concludes, "That there never was a time when there was not motion, and never will be a time when there will not be motion" (252b 6-

8). Aristotle also objects to the idea that motion may have begun self-caused; he points out that, in those things in which motion is said to be "self-caused," in fact, there is a part of the thing that is already in motion and imparts motion to the whole. Self-caused means that motion is not imparted from without but from some part of the whole that is already in motion. In such cases, the motion of the part that moves the other parts of a things requires a mover.

Since everything is moved by something and since motion is eternal, Aristotle concludes that there must be something that imparts motion without itself being moved; otherwise, there would be an infinite regress of movers, the moved and instruments of moving, which is unacceptable (Physics 8.5). (An axiom for Aristotle is that an infinite regress is impossible.) According to

Aristotle, all movable things are only potentially in motion, and require something else to act upon them in order to be set in motion: "So it is clear that in all these cases the thing does not move itself, but it contains within itself the source of motion—not of moving something or of causing motion, but of suffering it." (Physics 8.4; 255b 29-31).

THUS, IF THERE WERE NO UNMOVED MOVER, THERE COULD BE NO MOTION, because a moved mover requires a cause of its own motion and no infinite regress is possible. In Physics 8.6, Aristotle argues that, since motion is both eternal and necessary, the first mover must be equally eternal and necessary.

Because those things involved in the eternal and continuous process of motion are not eternal and necessary, since they come into being and perish, there must be one or many eternal and necessary thing or things outside the process of motion that imparts or impart motion to the things in motion.

This is the only way that there could be any motion, for non-eternal and contingent movers cannot explain all motion, because their own coming into existence needs a cause. He explains, "There is something that comprehends them all, and that as something apart from each one of them, and this it is that is the cause of the fact that some things are and others are not and of the continuous process of change" (Physics 259a 3-5).

It is not possible to explain eternal motion by postulating a plurality of unmoved movers capable of imparting motion but that do not exist eternally, for "There must clearly be something that causes things that move themselves at one time to be and at another time not to be" (Physics 258b 21).

Aristotle determines that there is only one unmoved mover, not only because many unmoved movers are unnecessary. Moreover, because only one mover could produce a continuous motion, in the sense of being an interconnected system of causes and effects.

Consequently, since it is continuous, motion is one; one effect requires a single cause, so that the unmoved mover must also be one. He concludes that an unmoved mover causing eternal motion must likewise be eternal (Physics 260a 1-2)."

Like others, Leith Anderson in his response exposes a lack of basic statistical knowledge that afflicts the general discussion here On Faith and other venues. He, like many others, appears to be unaware of the sociological analysis that is revolutionizing our understanding of the current state of religion in America and abroad. The notion that religion is universal and integral to the human mind is obsolete. Over the last century, the nonreligious have been the one group that has experienced truly rapid growth to about a billion persons. In this western democracies hundreds of millions have become atheists and agnostics, this has largely been through spontaneous conversion, and in some 1st world countries large majorities no longer believe in a creator. This wrecks the idea that people have a deep set desire for God. Sociological analysis demonstrates that religion is consistently popular in populations that feel socio-economically insecure, including the US where our Darwinian arrangement leaves the majority vulnerable to sudden financial ruin due to losing a job or health insurance. Insecure people tend to seek the help and protection of alleged deities. In the other democracies progressive policies leave the middle class so secure – no one in western Europe goes bankrupt due to health care expenses – that the majority has abandoned the churches in droves. Basically, when conditions are bad or insecure the people believe, when they are comfortable and secure they don’t. Therefore for most people religious devotion is really a superficial psychological response to adverse conditions, and is easily and normally cast off when societal conditions are as healthy as they are in the secular democracies. Ergo, faith is not a profound connection with the magical supernatural realm. Popular atheism is similarly casual, most people don’t really care about these matters all that much, it is how their personal lives are going that really matters to most.

Because religion is actually driven mainly by economics there is not much the churches can do to stop much less reverse the slide of western faith. Even the US is secularizing rapidly. Like most surveys the PEW poll understates American atheism because respondents are reluctant to admit to pollsters they are not religiously observant (studies show that people consistently over report church attendance by a factor of two for instance). Two recent Harris polls found that a fifth of Americans, 60 million, qualify as atheists and agnostics, up from just two million in the 1950s. All other indicators of religiosity are going down. This is probably because the mass consumer society that the corporations are promoting and the public is going along with is displacing traditional spiritual values with modern materialism. Since the resources of the corporations dwarf those of the churches there is little the latter can do about this either.

It would be a very good idea if the debate were elevated to a new level by an increase in basic knowledge by those involved. As it is most persons are feeding bad information into the discussion on the existence of the supernatural.

To learn more check these out --

G. Paul and Phil Zuckerman, “Why the Gods Are Not Winning,” Edge (2007) 4/30, www.edge.org/3rd_culture/paul07/paul07_index.html.

G. Paul, “Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look,” Journal of Religion and Society (2005), 5, http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html. Also see Michael Shermer “Bowling for God,” Scientific American (2006) 12: 44, www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=D27BB754-E7F2-99DF-3E2F8A28942743F5.

G. Paul “Creationism in Decline” New Scientist 4/5/08,
www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826501.000-creationism-in-decline.html
“Expelled Expired: Creationism Is Not Winning” 5/27/08, EnergyGrid,
energygrid.com/society/2008/05gp-creationists.html.

G. Paul Dissident Voice “Buckley's Big Mistake” 3/5/08
www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/03/buckleys-big-mistake.

G. Paul OpEdNews “The Real Reason the Religious Right is Losing America” 12/16/07
www.opednews.com/articles/life_a_gregory__071214_the_real_reason_the_.htm.

Having taught philosophy for 35 years, I am better acquainted than most people with the fact that most people don't understand their own beliefs at all. The bulk of the comments here reveal that fact very effectively.

Right now, I want to state two facts that all people who are concerned with religion should face.
FIRST: Not one single statement about a supernatural being is known to be true. So why do perhaps three billion people over the world continue to speak about such a being?

SECOND:The idea of "faith" is quite complex. But one fundamental point is impossible to avoid: to have faith is completely different from having knowledge. "Faith" and "knowledge" are totally different, and therefore they should not be treated as if they were the same.

PaganPlace, Wiccan:

This is a little off topic but I was reading a blog that I thought you all might appreciate.

One of my favorite authors has a site on the web, where he posts about many things--currently he and his wife are living in Ireland (for this part of the year,) and Ireland is rich in Pagan identity (prior to Christianization by the Roman Catholic church) and you might find today's post fun:

http://www.sciencemusings.com/blog/2008/07/uses-of-enchantment.html

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GABRIEL ECHAVEZ:
ETERNAL LIFE WHERE?

IRT:
"Where do we go after we die? At the same situation we were before we were born. Do we remember facts BEFORE our birth? Of course not, we were as disorganized as we will be after our death. Best regards."

ANS:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07170a.htm

“Every man has an innate desire for perfect beatitude. Experience proves this. The sight of the imperfect goods of earth naturally leads us to form the conception of a happiness so perfect as to satisfy all the desires of our heart.

There is a heaven, i.e., God will bestow happiness and the richest gifts on all those who depart this life free from original sin and personal mortal sin, and who are, consequently, in the state of justice and friendship with God.

Concerning the purification of those just souls who depart in venial sin or who are still subject to temporal punishment for sin, there is PURGATORY.

On the immediate beginning of eternal happiness after death, or eventually, after the passage through purgatory, see PARTICULAR JUDGMENT.

The existence of heaven is, of course, denied by atheists, materialists, and pantheists of all centuries as well as by those rationalists who teach that the soul perishes with the body — in short, by all who deny the existence of God or the immortality of the soul. But, for the rest, if we abstract from the specific quality and the supernatural character of heaven, the doctrine has never met with any opposition worthy of note. Even mere reason can prove the existence of heaven or of the happy state of the just in the next life.

Where is heaven, the dwelling of God and the blessed?

Some are of opinion that heaven is everywhere, as God is everywhere. According to this view the blessed can move about freely in every part of the universe, and still remain with God and see everywhere.

Everywhere, too, they remain with Christ (in His sacred Humanity) and with the saints and the angels. For, according to the advocates of this opinion, the spatial distances of this world must no longer impede the mutual intercourse of blessed.

In general, however, theologians deem more appropriate that there should be a special and glorious abode, in which the blessed have their peculiar home and where they usually abide, even though they be free to go about in this world.

For the surroundings in the midst of which the blessed have their dwelling must be in accordance with their happy state. The internal union of charity, which joins them in affection, must find its outward expression in community of habitation.

At the end of the world, the earth together with the celestial bodies will be gloriously transformed into a part of the dwelling-place of the blessed (Revelation 21). Hence there seems to be no sufficient reason for attributing a metaphorical sense to those numerous utterances of the Bible that suggest a definite dwelling-place of the blessed.

Theologians, therefore, generally hold that the heaven of the blessed is a special place with definite limits. Naturally, this place is held to exist, not within the earth, but, in accordance with the expressions of Scripture, without and beyond its limits. All further details regarding its locality are quite uncertain. The Church has decided nothing on this subject

The bliss of heaven is eternal and consists primarily in the possession of God, and that heaven presupposes a condition of perfect happiness, in which every wish of the heart finds adequate satisfaction.

Therefore man is created for eternal happiness; and he will infallibly attain it hereafter, unless, by sin, he renders himself unworthy of so high a destiny.

God made all things for His formal glory, which consists in the knowledge and love shown Him by rational creatures. Irrational creatures cannot give formal glory to God directly, but they should assist rational creatures in doing so.

This they can do by manifesting God's perfections and by rendering other services; whilst rational creatures should, by their own personal knowledge and love of God, refer and direct all creatures to Him as their last end. Therefore every intelligent creature in general, and man in particular, is destined to know and love God for ever, though he may forfeit eternal happiness by sin.

God, in his infinite justice and holiness, must give virtue its due reward. But, as experience teaches, the virtuous do not obtain a sufficient reward here; hence they will be recompensed hereafter, and the reward must be everlasting, since the soul is immortal."

It sounds like the 21% should be reaching for a dictionary before reaching for a bible unless they are only an atheist in the sense that they don't believe in Zeus or Thor or the Flying Spaghetti Monster but are quite happy to believe in other non existent deities.

I know Christians; Christians who nurture the fears of hell into the minds of infants, who burn books that teach free inquiry and honest thinking, and who are deeply rooted in their beliefs they no longer recognize that for all they claim they might actually be wrong. Judgmental people who claim that Charles Darwin’s books are derogatory and as children of God must be above those lower life forms but at every turn manifest the thinking of apes. I have family members who utter bible verses that demand complete allegiance, who beat their children into submission simply because the bible calls for it. They crack the belt that scars the skin of the youth with their endless tirade of quotations from scriptures. Blood for blood is called and away with all science as it would deny them a spot in paradise. “Tis better to lose an arm than to lose your soul!” And literally everything is tossed away; Knowledge, reasoning, compassion, truth and wisdom. The word of God is the only truth, the only light that shall guide us into salvation. They close their eyes, mumble gibberish and call on ghosts to take possession of their consciousness. Raise their hands into the skies, dancing wildly while mouthing their repeated halleluiahs. They gather like witches convening before the cauldron bewailing the sins of their neighbors. They pray for the unbelievers as they look down on them as unworthy. They label other sects as machinations of the devil, lambasting mercilessly the beliefs of foreign Gods. On the reins of coercion and manipulation the steel carriages of religion rumbles on proudly carrying the banner of hypocrisy. No one is spared, either you have Jesus in your heart or you’re bound for hell. Without Christ in your heart you are always wrong! This is why I am no longer a Chrisitian!

I am a Hindu who went to protestant school and sang hymns in the morning to GOD who made “all things bright and beautiful”. I am now one of those atheists who prays - albeit to different gods, from the million plus Hindu pantheon and with equal fervor to the lord Jesus and I must admit all the Gods have worked for me. This could be typical Hindu conditioning at work but I am postulating that even though I don’t believe in a benevolent God watching all of over us waiting to punish or reward, I am a believer in the power of prayer. I don’t see this as a rebuttal of science in fact I would wait for science to clearly explain how I benefit from prayer and provide a framework for most effective prayer.

Dear Sirs,

After reading the amusing results of Pew's poll I can only say that they prove that the human brain came as a necessity to survive not to be rational and that it is obvious the irrationality of men (no to speak of our gracious women).

Where do we go after we die? At the same situation we were before we were born. Do we remember facts BEFORE our birth? Of course not, we were as disorganized as we will be after our death. Best regards,

Gabriel Echavez

THE ALTERNATE WORLD WHERE AN ATHEIST WHO BELIEVES IN GOD IS AT HOME:

Why can't an atheists believe in God, or pray to God and still be an atheists. Aren't oxymorons in fashion? Gay marriage is an oxymoron and we have gay marriage in some States.

Contradictions. by our highest Federal Court. are in vogue. The Court banned the Ten Commandments from the Public Square though Moses holding the Commandments adorns the doors to the entrance of the Supreme Court, while Moses and the Commandments decorate the East Pediment of the Supreme Court building. We maintain they're not the real Commandments, and Moses isn't really Moses the Biblical Jewish leader.

Moreover Washington D.C. is embellished numerous kinds of religious little adages and aphorism that adorn the bases of our historical statues that embellish the grounds of our capital.

The ACLU has already filed suit to remove crosses at veterans' memorials, like the Mt. Soledad cross in San Diego a Korean War memorial. Of course, Crucifixes are banned by this audacious blithering Court. What will the bumbling Court do with all the crosses at Arlington? It's just another contradiction that doesn't matter much.

Woman was always with child when she was pregnant, but Supreme Court Justice Blackmun's Trimester Theory and Roe v. Wade said a woman was never with child. The conceived, according to Blackmun was a "thing."

In the First Trimester, this thing, a.k.a. the conceived, developed into a 2/3rds "thing" and a 1/3rd human. In the Second Trimester, this "thing" developed further into a 2/3rds human and a 1/3rd "thing." However, it never became human until it was expunged from the womb.

Hence, an abortionist plunging a scissors into the back of a skull of a little child gasping for his first breath, while being born was, as Blackmun described him, not a "person." It is the Supreme Contradiction of reality.

You see the Fourth Amendment protects “persons,” viz. a person has a right "to be secure in their own person."

Blackmun knowing the Constitution protected “person,” a.k.a. human being, circumscribed the Constitution, and usurped God’s authority and redefined a human being. It was fine because, truth didn’t matter, the consensus did.

So what does a little contradiction of atheists believing in God matter? If you can’t see a baby is a baby and you call it a thing; what does any truth matter?

In addition, we are actually living in an era of Global Cooling and not Global Warming. So we allocate billions of dollars to prove a contradiction.

Evidence of Global Cooling
Thursday, February 28, 2008
By Brit Hume

FEB 28, 2008
"Now some fresh pickings from the Political Grapevine:

Cold Reception

Tuesday we told you about several areas around the planet experiencing record cold and snow pack — in the face of all the predictions of global warming.

Now there is word that all four major global temperature-tracking outlets have released data showing that temperatures have dropped significantly over the last year. California meteorologist Anthony Watts says the amount of cooling ranges from 65-hundredths of a degree Centigrade to 75-hundreds of a degree.

That is said to be a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. It is reportedly the single fastest temperature change ever recorded — up or down.

Some scientists contend the cooling is the result of reduced solar activity —, which they say, is a larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases."

When you live in the alternate world where up is down and down is up, where evil is good and good is evil, truth doesn’t matter does it?

A person who calls themselfs atheist, is one who is in denial of the truth from God. In the present condition our world is in today. I would suggest reading the King James bible 2: Timothy 1 Thru 7 reads, 1. This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2. For men shall be lovers of their ownselves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient, to parents, unthankful, unholy.
3. Without natural affection, trucebreakers,false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good.
4.Traitors,heady,high-minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God:
5. Having a form of Godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
6. For of this sort are they which creep into houses,and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lust.
7. Ever leaning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Can this be the atheist? I think so.

A person who calls themselfs atheist, is one who is in denial of the truth from God. In the present condition our world is in today. I would suggest reading the King James bible 2: Timothy 1 Thru 7 reads, 1. This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2. For men shall be lovers of their ownselves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient, to parents, unthankful, unholy.
3. Without natural affection, trucebreakers,false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good
4.Traitors,heady,high-minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God:
5. Having a form of Godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
6. For of this sort are they which creep into houses,and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lust.
7. Ever leaning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Can this be the atheist? I think so.

Go to TED.com and check for Richard Dawkins talk on the theme "Is there a God?" You'll laugh even if you don't agree with him. I'm a 70 year old 'un-born again' atheist.

I swear on a stack of bibles it's all jew lies. The bible, I mean. This problem of christian atheists is not new, most christian adherents of nonchristian faiths merely reformulate familiar popular fallacies.

And there is still one survey/poll that Victoria et al will not answer. Strange!! Maybe there is a reading comprehension problem amongst the Islamic commentators on this blog.

Victoria has actually demonstrated a reading comprehension problem in the past by once citing an anti-Muslim reference as an authoritative source of Islamic beliefs.

Once again:

A six question survey for the Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist, Victoria, Pamela, Nouri, Daisy, Eboo, Asim, Ahmed, Mo and all the other Muslims out there:

Do you believe:

1. In "pretty/ugly wingie" thingies?

2. That the long-dead Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words now listed in the koran?

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life?

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7 800 year-old feud between Sunnis and Shiites give significant credence that suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran?

5. That having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of lust and polygamy?

6. And that the condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of anger and greed???????

Note: Since atheists are in the general mix of US residents i.e the source of the Pew survey/poll, it is assumed, based on the previously cited official survey of the literacy and literacy deficiency rate in the USA, that many of the atheists who took said Pew poll did not have the proper reading skills to know what they were viewing which resulted in the very odd statistics.

well i cannot tell that from this thread mr mark- but go for it!

VICTORIA writes:
"without god- what do atheists have to talk about?"

Oh, I don't know. Probably the important stuff. The stuff that actually matters.

I think these so called atheists believe in god, just not the Christian god..These have chosen the broad way over the narrow way..I believe it is new age philosophy..It leads to only one place, namely hell..as prophecied 2000 years ago..
New agers and god forbid even some Christians think all men are children of god... This is just not true...The children of god are those that have accepted Jesus..The rest are sons of Adam, in Adams likeness and image AFTER SIN not before.Jesus is the only way back to God's likenss and image.. It is called rebirth..
Obama believes this new age lie that there are many paths to god.. which contridicts the Bible. There are two ways..
Jesus who leads to life and the broad way that leads to hell..I fear for America if the wolf in sheeps's clothing is elected as president of the most powerful country on earth..

Atheists don't believe in a life after death? It's more likely that it is biped animals that don't believe in life after death because their brain structures haven't evolved to the point where there is a spiritual consciousness created in the mind and body. Any study of humans might generate a bell curve where ten to twenty percent of a 'group' has properties of spiritual awareness such as belief in a holy spirit, prayers or meditation focusing on that spirit and incorporating values that aid awareness of a holy spirit. Why should that be a surprise? If you made a larger bell curve that took into account ALL spiritual manifestations including ALL religions , biped unconsciousness might register as less than one percent of the curve and atheists four or five percent of the curve. In that case, proof of spiritual awareness in some form would be a given in the same manner that 'time' and 'space' are givens.

without god- what do atheists have to talk about?

Based on the childish and hateful comments of most "athiests" on this board, I am guessing that many of those who claim to be athiests are just angry and confused kids who are as likely to lash out against their schools and parents as they are the church.

Many of these angry children will grow up and realize that their schools, parents and churches are not the great evil that they appear to be n the midst of puberty.

"21% of American atheists believe in God or a universal spirit, 12% believe in heaven and 10% pray at least once a week. What do you make of this?"

What do I make of this? Well... let's see...

An 'atheist' is... by definition... someone who does not believe in god(s). So... what this poll is telling us is that 21% of the people who DO NOT believe in god(s), BELIEVE in god(s).

What I make of this is that the folks at Pew are too damned dumb to be allowed to do polls, because they are unable to recognize a clear contradiction... telling them that their poll is somehow flawed... even after they've been beaten over the head with it.

What do you make of a new survey which shows that 21% of American atheists believe in God or a universal spirit, 12% believe in heaven and 10% pray at least once a week?

Obviously the easy answer to the question is that a significant number of people who answered the survey are ignorant as to terms, or perhaps the survey itself was flawed as to methodology, but we should probably not go with the easy answer to this question as it is so important. We should probably question whether terms such as "God" and "atheist" have ever been defined satisfactorily at all.

Particularly do I find myself wondering how it is people can be so certain they understand the term "atheist". For centuries the term "God" has been inscrutable not to mention God himself, but it seems everyone knows what an atheist is when really we should question if we really know anything about living a life without God. Certainly when we examine the political beliefs of atheists and believers we have no real distinction yet we can work with. So what really is the difference between an atheist and a believer if politics is unchanged?

Take for example a republican evangelical and a republican atheist businessman. The difference between the two seems rather slim. We can point out differences such as the republican atheist being in business only for himself (sheer egoism) and holding different values perhaps from the evangelical, but the both still vote the same. We have no dramatic change in politics from God to Godlessness as we probably should expect. Certainly we can say the religious person is a mite deluded and that the atheist is a tad greedy, but the both seem to get along quite well.

Now take an atheist who is leftwing. It might seem such an atheist is out of the previous dilemma because he not only is not religious but holds a different politics than the typical evangelical. But is this atheist really all that far from religious belief in his politics? Of course not. Leftwing politics is quite ideal--in fact when we bring the theory of evolution into the picture we can say that leftwing politics is counter the theory of evolution, goes against the grain of a dog eat dog nature. Arguably the leftwing atheist is just as deluded as the average religious person--in fact both imagine something of a heavenly society. The religious person believes in something of a city of God and the leftwing person believes in something of a radical equality between people. Both are ideal goals.

So what politics would an atheist have to hold to be clearly different from the religious sort of person? A very difficult question. But precisely because it is difficult to answer we cannot yet say with any degree of confidence what exactly it means to be an atheist. We must continue to define what an atheist is in the face of traditional religion. One sort of answer however is that the atheist holds something of a nihilistic, anarchic view--and holds it because he has seen the cruelty of existence and abandoned any belief that it can possibly have been created by God. But such a view is of course problematical from the position of trying to establish a working form of politics. It would seem leftwing politics and/or anarchy are not enough for an atheistic position to be clearly established against God-fearing beliefs and types of politics.

The only answer I can clearly see, the only answer that one would read and say "this can only be an atheist's politics and therefore proof of an atheist position against religion" is a politics which enters fully into science and embraces the problem of man being essentially an animal undergoing evolution. Furthermore this politics must say "man is an animal yes, but man had better work on making himself something of a God or he will wallow in the animal life or turn back to traditional religion". This seems to me the only true atheist politics and furthermore a politics in which there will not be significant numbers of atheists saying they believe in God. Or if they say they believe in God they are merely speaking of their hopes of man through science becoming much more than the animal he now is.

Atheists might be right that there is no God or heaven or usefulness of prayer, but still we humans hope like crazy and have all sorts of utopian notions for society and strive to make ourselves much more than we are. We have to clarify all this and no doubt it will take centuries more than the effort we have already produced. Strange how humans are: they might not believe in God but still they strive to make themselves so much--in fact something of Gods. Hard to tell if one can get away from God no matter how one strives. Perhaps we should just be satisfied with an honest approach to God--whatever that means. Interesting if it would turn out that the atheist position is just the most honest approach to God.

Sorry, Jonny, Anonymous was me... :-)

Jonny- "Of COURSE they can't/won't/don't understand that magical thought is NOT universally accepted."

And what happens when you come across a belief system completely devoted to free will AND magickal thinking, without caring if it is universally accepted or not? There are more ways to experience this existence than you give credence to, and we Wiccans just can't resist messing with dogma, be it religious or otherwise.

Theists and supernaturalists START from the ponit that theirs is a universally accepted belief.

Of COURSE they can't/won't/don't understand that magical thought is NOT universally accepted.

If they DID, their universal viewpoint would be rotted fish.

It IS, of course, but nobody likes the smell.

In today's world, religion is used as a passion amplifier--not a belief in God.

Race is a convenient distraction from the problems that plague us all. Race is also the "destruct button" of our society. Race is also a blanket our politicians can hide behind when they want to shift rightful blame off of themselves.

Race and religion are the two most powerful passion amplifiers on the world arena. It is easy to see just from listening the election speeches. Of course, our own hypocrisy doubles the power of those amplifiers.

What do we have to look forward to? Well, the administration uses the power of the "fear factor" via the bogeyman (Bin Laden/Iran/Muslim) to scare people. The 'fear factor' has a shelf life, but mixing it with the Race and Religion passion amplifiers, coupled with our ingrained hypocrisy, will extend the fear shelf life for years--maybe generations.

At the rate things are going, our churches will have to change the song, Amazing Grace to Amazing Stupidity.

Ah, bipolar2, run and find your thorazine. Nature is but one aspect of the Lady, and you are surrounded by the Divine. ;-)

** Too much faith-based ignorance, not enough faith-free understanding **

‘On Faith' here’s the word from Non-Faith:
1. commonly used words are highly ambiguous, notoriously, ‘god’
2. people can be confused or conflicted when thinking about “gods.”

>> The opposite of ‘theism’ is ‘non-theism’, not ‘atheism’

Non-theism is not atheism. There are non-theistic religions. Chinese ancestor worship and Shintoism, for example. These, of course, do posit the existence of spirits of the dead or of spirits (living forces) within nature. The earliest form of a world religion, Theravada Buddhism, is non-theistic.

>> religion belongs to culture, not some supra-sensible existence

Words like ‘god’ ‘theism’ ‘atheism’ are highly ambiguous -- they have multiple acceptable meanings. They are also vague -- the criteria for employing one meaning rather than another are ill-defined.

To be precise I use one long word, I am a complete *anti-supernaturalist*. One who opposes any doctrine of any supernatural realm whatsoever. None of the following are real: Platonic ideas, entelechies, gods, buddhas, demons, spirits, minds, karma, reincarnation.

We godless anti-supernaturalists accept only one world. The world we call *nature*. Religions belong to cultures embedded in nature. And *cultures* are our distinctive human-all-too-human handiwork. Religions are obsolete, unnecessary cultural artifacts. Any specific religion reenacts and institutionalizes a cultic myth. It gets spread through custom and imitation, financially supported by mores and law, and enforced by intimidation and violence.

>> I demand my right to freedom of conscience (and, no damn’ xian state)

Since I am a happily god-free anti-supernaturalist, I belong to the most despised minority in the US. Why according to GHW Bush, I'm not fit to be a citizen. The US is still (barely) a secular state. There is selective amnesia towards a long, blood soaked history of xian arrogance, violence, and unlawful domination, underwritten by biased tax codes and ideological garbage like state funding for faith-based agencies.

Whatever happened to 'freedom of conscience' -- my right (under the establishment clause of the first amendment) not to indulge in your otherworldly illusions. And your duty as a fellow citizen to leave me alone and to let our secular state function as its founders intended.

bipolar2

I believe it is more a qustion of the definition of what "god" is. Did they mean the Christian view of God or the Hindu idea of god? Was it the Wiccan "god" or Budhist view of what god may be? Atheists do not believe in the "supernatural", do they believe in nature? Things happen in nature that can not be explained...it is natural...and unexplained.

I am Wiccan and have experienced many, many unexplained occurances...they could have been merely personal perception, or the gods working their will. My perseption of time distorted or proof of my faith? I choose to see the proof.It's all in what we choose to see...I look at an acorn and see a forest of oaks.

terra

How many angels can fit on the head of a pin? That is the seeming level of the debates used in theology. Spinoza spoke of this in his comments about conventional churches in the 17th cnentury. Since the story of christianity is so hard to justify intellectually, specious arguments become the norm.

The judeo-christian story is simply one of many myths about the spirit world. It has gained credence through repetition until it dominates the theology of nearly half the world. This despite the incredible lack of evidence for it's truth.

Serpent symbolism is universal and is hardly limited to the Garden of Eden...while largely negative in the Abrahamic faiths, serpents and dragons are cast in far more positive roles elsewhere, mythologically speaking.

The symbol of the snake is often associated with knowledge and wisdom, and the caduceus (intertwined snakes) as a medical symbol signifies healing. The Egyptian Ouroboros is a cosmic serpent pictured with tail in mouth to make a perfect circle, the symbol of the eternal recurrance of life and the infinity of the cosmic creation.

Symbols found in Christianity are ALWAYS found elsewhere in the human historical ledger of mythologies - there is nothing unique symbolically speaking in Christianity, including the Resurrection. Symbology is simply handed down from generation to generation, and from culture to culture.

It's all been done before - mythology really does seem to reflect the universal archetypes that Carl Jung was so smitten with via the Collective Unconscious.....and that Plato had preceived so long before.

Serpent symbolism is universal and is hardly limited to the Garden of Eden...while largely negative in the Abrahamic faiths, serpents and dragons are cast in far more positive roles elsewhere, mythologically speaking.

The symbol of the snake is often associated with knowledge and wisdom, and the caduceus (intertwined snakes) as a medical symbol signifies healing. The Egyptian Ouroboros is a cosmic serpent pictured with tail in mouth to make a perfect circle, the symbol of the eternal recurrance of life and the infinity of the cosmic creation.

Symbols found in Christianity are ALWAYS found elsewhere in the human historical ledger of mythologies - there is nothing unique symbolically speaking in Christianity, including the Resurrection. Symbology is simply handed down from generation to generation, and from culture to culture.

It's all been done before - mythology really does seem to reflect the universal archetypes that Carl Jung was so smitten with via the Collective Unconscious.....and that Plato had preceived so long before.

Lucifer or 'Bright Son of the Morning' is falsely associated with Satan, who is actually that greatest of fallen angels, Samael (or Saternail), known to the Gnostics as Ialdaboath - the first archon of creation.

In his confusion, he proclaimed himself the Creator of the Universe, and was cast down below the Abyss by Zoe (Life) the daughter of Sophia (Wisdom of the true Godhead). This also has Kabbalistic connotations, mythologically speaking.

It is clear that Samael is affiliated with the Demiurge of Gnosticism. In his role as Satan, he is the prince of the material world - and also associated with the planet Saturn and the astrological sign of Capricorn in Greek and Roman mythology.

Lucifer, in all liklihood, remains an angel in good standing.

See 'The Watkins Dictionary of Angels' by Julia Cresswell for more details.......

"I suppose it's possible the church you attend, taught free will is the origin of evil and used as "justification" of evil, but I am not aware of those Christian teachings."

"Marcus rather than rail, try producing the information you claim to possess. You represented yourself as knowledgeable in Christianity. I won't help you out, but Lucifer's fall does not explain the origin of evil, and the Bible is silent on the matter". - Joseph Jibran

It's very difficult to spar with a moving target. You claim to have some knowledge about the origin of evil I do not have, yet you refuse to state that knowledge.

The origin of "sin" (a manifestation of evil) according to the bible is when Adam ate from the tree of Knowledge of good and evil in Eden. That dictated that man would henceforth live in sin. That is the accepted version in the Judeo Christian tradition.

This then led to the doctrine of Lucifer as the serpent who talked Eve into eating the fruit of the tree. God then cursed the serpent to slither on the ground. The Judeo Christian tradition is quite clear on the interpretation that the serpent was Lucifer, the great satan.

HAPPY FOURTH OF JULY TO ALL AMERICANS!

People believe wierd stuff ... 40% of American believe the genisus version of creation and that the earth is only 6000 years old. To me a person who hears voices is a schizophrenic but to many people they are a prophet or a savior! We are biological beings and the same thing will happen to each of us - conception, birth, life, death. Nothing more and nothing less. It is time to give up beliefs in witchcraft and superstition and believe in science.

I'm not too sure those 21% have thought about their own point of view thoroughly, but there's a Dutch guy I really admire, I read his book, who defends this stance:

"A self-described “atheist pastor” is a bestselling author in the Netherlands. The Rev Klaas Hendrikse's book, Believing in a God Who Does Not Exist: Manifesto of an Atheist Pastor, published in November, is being reprinted for the third time. “The non-existence of God is for me not an obstacle but a precondition to believing in God,” he says."

Source
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3052946.ece
According to his definition:
"An atheist who believes in God" is possible,
"an atheist who believes God exists" is an oxymoron.

I'm not too sure those 21% have thought about their own point of view thoroughly, but there's a Dutch guy I really admire, I read his book, who defends this stance:

"A self-described “atheist pastor” is a bestselling author in the Netherlands. The Rev Klaas Hendrikse's book, Believing in a God Who Does Not Exist: Manifesto of an Atheist Pastor, published in November, is being reprinted for the third time. “The non-existence of God is for me not an obstacle but a precondition to believing in God,” he says."

Source
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3052946.ece
According to his definition:
"An atheist who believes in God" is possible,
"an atheist who believs God exists" is an oxymoron.

Reasons for the results:

1. A wee bit too much sipping of the sacramental wine in the Pew (intentional church pun there).

2. I.Q. < 72 required to participate in the survey (applicable to surveyors as well as surveyees).

If we Americans have grown more tolerant of differences, presumably religious differences, as Mr. Elliott proposes, thereby "less dogmatic" and "more generous of spirit," it may be we've grown less religious, contrary to his conclusions.

There are two ways to regard one's religiosity: one is institutional religious adherence, and the other is one's true religious consciousness. I dare say that if people can grow in the spirit of accepting other faiths without conditions (there are always the motives of those who seduce the other with generous tolerance of their religion, while working on capturing their souls), they would likely have loosened or broken the chains that bound them to their religious institution. Thereby becoming less religious in a traditional, institutional sense.

This appears to be happening around the country today. More and more people are searching exotic religions or philosophies for personal meaning to their lives. It doesn't mean they are more or less religious. It may mean they are seeking a purer religious experience, outside the "canned" religion they've been given for consumption all their lives. Or that experience may not necessarily include a deity. Searching for meaning in Buddhism, for example, is essentially a philosophical/spiritual quest. The Buddha is not a deity.

As to "atheists" who believe in God, or who practice deity-based religion, they are not atheists, pure and simple. This is a contradiction, explainable, perhaps, only by that person's misconception of their own atheism.

There is still one survey/poll that the Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist et al still will not answer. Strange!! But we will try once again:

A six question survey for the Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist, Victoria, Pamela, Nouri, Daisy, Eboo, Asim, Ahmed, Mo and all the other Muslims out there:

Do you believe:

1. In "pretty/ugly wingie" thingies?

2. That the long-dead Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words now listed in the koran?

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life?

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7 800 year-old feud between Sunnis and Shiites give significant credence that suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran?

5. That having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of lust and polygamy?

6. And that the condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of anger and greed???????

Note: Since atheists are in the general mix of US residents i.e the source of the Pew survey/poll, it is assumed, based on the previously cited official survey of the literacy and literacy deficiency rate in the USA that many of the atheists who took said Pew poll did not have the proper reading skills to know what they were reading which resulted in the very odd statistics.

An Atheist who prays to God is like a Christian who believes there is more than one way to God besides through Jesus.

NEITHER ONE EXISTS!

Actually, I prefer the term, 'Godless heathen nonbeliever'/heretic/great unwashed, whatever you've got there that sets me apart from any organized religion in at least marginally contemptuous and derogatory fashion, because thats about how I look at some of these megachurches and their VISA/MC-accepted 'flocks'. Flock, fleece, golden fleece, whatever goes on in there, I think if you wanna find Jeebuz, you're not going to find Him while you're kneeling there waiting for Right Rev. Goodbuddy to come and pick your pocket. Get thee to a bookstore, and get for yourself a Bible, and go on your sacred quest for the Holy Grail, or whatever else it is you think is missing in your spiritual life, just look out for people banging two halves of coconuts together that tend to follow you around all the time.

any atheist that prays to a deity is not atheist. can those who pray identify with Oxymoron?

this thing, not a newsworthy piece, is the equivalent of:
i am not a biggot, i own a colored tv.
i support civil rights, and only i only one that has the right to vote, along with other like minded biggots.

better yet, see today's Gene Weingarten's post on patriotism:

i am an american patriot because i believe in america and the values Our Founding Fathers wrote in the Declaration of Independence, the US Consitution and the Law we live by.

I am a Patriot, Gene Weingarten. what are you?

Being a man of cloth, I would argue that any religion - organized or not - is a fine example of moral hazard. How could it be otherwise? A rather sick and debased culture such as ours - full of both personal and corporate selfishness and greed. The United States is the richest third world country on earth. And the responses to the Pew survey question itself shows how fast and far we can undermine public education. I do feel sometimes that humans do not deserve to inherit the earth - only then would my prayers would be answered. God Bless America.

Being a man of cloth, I would argue that any religion - organized or not - is a fine example of moral hazard. How could it be otherwise? A rather sick and debased culture such as ours - full of both personal and corporate selfishness and greed. The United States is the richest third world country on earth. And the responses to the Pew survey question itself shows how fast and far we can undermine public education. I do feel sometimes that humans do not deserve to inherit the earth - only then would my prayers would be answered. God Bless America.

Why are you always trying to get folks to agree with the control? There is no such thing as a god!
Give it up!

Atheist is a person that don’t find plausible the proof presented by religious groups to backup their extremely extraordinary claim that a supernatural entity exist and snoop every move of the humans and the entire universe.

Atheist are as normal or abnormal as the rest of the population. Some are productive citizens, exemplar parents and honest workers.

Other atheists are criminals, spiritually sleep or spiritually bankrupt. But you can find those kind of characters in other segments of the population, even among priests, imams, rabbis etc.

Peace to all and best wishes,

JAC

"The fact of man's "free will" is used as a justification of evil. Since when is "free will" an excuse for evil doing? If man is going to eventually be judged for his misdeeds, why allow those misdeeds to go unpunished in this life"---Marcus Pryor

I suppose it's possible the church you attend, taught free will is the origin of evil and used as "justification" of evil, but I am not aware of those Christian teachings.

Marcus rather than rail, try producing the information you claim to possess. You represented yourself as knowledgeable in Christianity. I won't help you out, but Lucifer's fall does not explain the origin of evil, and the Bible is silent on the matter.

regards, joseph jibran

An person that calls themselves an atheist and prays does not have a grasp of the definition of the word. I prefer the term non-theist, myself, because of the negative connotations that theists try to apply to the word. I do not believe in any deity and I certainly would never pray to any deity.

"I contend that we are both atheists. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you'll understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen Roberts

"To Anonymous from Daniel. How silly you sound Anonymous. Your words: "it is enough to live together in harmony". How is that not a Godlike urge?"

The "anonymous" label was because of a simple error. I am Marcus Pryor.

As to your question; living together in harmony is most definitely NOT a godlike urge. It is the simple acknowledgement of the need to have harmony in the interest of mutual survival. I didn't insult you, so don't insult me with your "silly" comment. I have studied religion and philosophy for decades, so nothing I say is "silly".

The superman comment came from a careful reading of what you said. Liberals believe in the perfectability of man. I don't I believe that is possible. Man can only survive as a species through the acknowledgement of mutual self interest.

"Athiest to me means spritually sleep or spiritually bankrupt...science is man's attempt to grasp and make sense of an uncomprehensible reality..philosophy is merely trying to place morals and values on these meanings..we will never know the TRUTH unless coming directly from divinity..."

What it means to you is meaningless to me. Reality is NOT "uncomprehinsible". It is simply available to anyone through the use of observation and scientific testing.

I like to look at bible stories through the eyes of an alien. To this alien, those stories are nothing more than myth and parables. They have become palatable in the western world through repitition and early childhood indoctrination.

To Anonymous from Daniel. How silly you sound Anonymous. Your words: "it is enough to live together in harmony". How is that not a Godlike urge? Typical secular humanistic utopianism in the face of evolution. Even sillier: you turn 180 degrees and assert the prerogative of evolution over any secular humanism and furthermore strangely enough speak of evolution as a personage: "evolution couldn't care a less, IT is simply interested..." Hard to tell if evolution is your God or if you have the Godlike urge to have us all live in harmony. As for my hope in a superman, I said no such thing. All I said was if the theory of evolution is true then we had better make ourselves, reach to make ourselves Gods and remove ourselves from the animal life we now live the best we can. If we cannot do so obviously we will turn back to basic religion. Certainly we will not live in some middle ground of just animal life or do as you seem to desire, which is oscillate between viewing evolution as some sort of personage and a secular humanistic "all live in harmony urge". Really think for a moment about what you write anonymous. See the hidden trends in your thought.

Really, I don't feel that it's anybody's business if atheists pray, don't pray, believe, don't believe. It shouldn't even be a matter of discussion what other people believe or pray, atheist or not...it's none of anybody's bloody business. But this incessant American preoccupation with this subject, all with the aim if having everybody conform - like the army officer who told the soldier he'd be a better soldier if he believed. What does believing make one a better killer. Moreover, I never noticed any church goers being any better people in their public lives. "And his hands would plait the priest's entrails, for want of a rope, to strangle kings" wrote Diderot often misquoted as "Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." However, I feel the second misquote applies well here.

Athiest to me means spritually sleep or spiritually bankrupt...science is man's attempt to grasp and make sense of an uncomprehensible reality..philosophy is merely trying to place morals and values on these meanings..we will never know the TRUTH unless coming directly from divinity...Christianity isnt the most "right" religion yet it is an advanced teachings of a relationship between man and god. Christianity was started by Paul who focused mainly on what Jesus was rather than Jesus the son of man and the son of God and how he lived a perfect life on earth. Something can be learned from each religion but no one religion is absolutely rightous over the other. Thats the main cause of our wars.. People need to understand it isnt science that makes us human but it is the divine creation of the mind and the spirit that dwells within that gives us the opportunity to know morality, values, plan ahead and reflect back, and have a self knowing consciousness...otherwise we would live in the present like animals responding to a electro-chemical environment. The divine plan is so great we will never find the "missing link" in human evolution or birth place of atoms or pure energy for that matter because it is a perfect design....Most of us will know in the next lifetime but we are "faith" sons of God seeing without believing...that will be our true reward the ones with faith..then we will learn the real answers pertaining to the real adam and eve, satan, lucifer, and the "devil" (3 different beings) and the truth about US

thanks Jeff D. The real problem is that the media is almost universally ignorant to social science methodology and data interpretation. So, all they can do is trust the so-called experts (Pew) without any investment in determining the validity of the instrument nor understanding of the coding scheme or analytic logic.

For some reason, the previous post didn't carry my name. I did not intend to remain anonymous.

thanks Jeff D. The real problem is that the media is almost universally ignorant to social science methodology and data interpretation.

Daniel said:

"But here is where it gets interesting: in an attempt to become as scientific and modern as possible and believe in the theory of evolution, we cannot simply dismiss religion and take ourselves as merely animals or we are liable to sheer egotism or nihilism before nature. We must for all reduction of God in our minds embark paradoxically on a project of making ourselves something of Gods. So we have a Godlike urge here which is of the strength of the utopianism of socialism or communism or secular humanism, but utopian in a different direction because instead of uplifting all and making all equal we have an urge to determine the best direction toward making man God."

I disagree completely. I am not a believer of the "superman". It's only necessary for humans to advance far enough to be able to live together in harmony. Evolution couldn't care less about any of it. It is simply interested in humans living long enough to reproduce. Anything else is our own construct to allow more satisfaction of life.

What do you make of a new survey which shows that 21% of American atheists believe in God or a universal spirit, 12% believe in heaven and 10% pray at least once a week?

Obviously the easy answer to the question is that a significant number of people who answered this survey are ignorant, or the survey itself was flawed as to methodology, but let us for a moment put aside the easy answer and simply ask if it is possible for an atheist to believe in God.

At first glance it seems an utter impossibility, but if we bring the field of politics into the picture and ask the religious and the atheists exactly what their political beliefs are, we find that there is either no great difference or if there is a difference it is pretty clear.

Take America for example. The religious are usually associated with the right wing party, but this is a party which could very well contain the in it for himself only atheist businessman. How far is this atheist businessman really from the evangelicals in his party? Obviously for all religious difference the both are contained within the narrow umbrella of a certain politics.

Or take the atheist who seemingly is out of this dilemma by being militantly leftwing. Is this leftwing atheist really that far from religion in his politics? Of course not. It is well known that socialism, communism and secular humanism for that matter are something of utopian urges, an attempt to have heaven on earth by industry rather than prayer--but Godlike, religious urges nonetheless. In fact many have spoken of communism as a Godlike urge that failed.

The question begs itself: what kind of politics must an atheist have to be truly consistent with atheism? I see only a few possibilities. One of course is the businessman in it only for himself--a politics of sheer egotism. Furthermore this businessman must have a true contempt for religion and be in something of a disguise should he belong to a political party (most likely rightwing). Another possibility is pure nihilism, a belief in nothing in an attempt to eradicate all possible Godlike urges in oneself. And still another is to truly emerge from politics as it is now into science, particularly the theory of evolution.

But here is where it gets interesting: in an attempt to become as scientific and modern as possible and believe in the theory of evolution, we cannot simply dismiss religion and take ourselves as merely animals or we are liable to sheer egotism or nihilism before nature. We must for all reduction of God in our minds embark paradoxically on a project of making ourselves something of Gods. So we have a Godlike urge here which is of the strength of the utopianism of socialism or communism or secular humanism, but utopian in a different direction because instead of uplifting all and making all equal we have an urge to determine the best direction toward making man God.

The point I am trying to make is that simply trying to define "God-fearing man" and "atheist" is not enough. We have to look at the wider field of action to see really how far a man is from religious beliefs. Going by politics we can see that we really have not distinguished ourselves from religious beliefs all that much. Certainly the atheists among us rarely demonstrate a truly radical, innovative and strange politics. Most are of the egotistical businessman stripe. Or the nihilistic stripe. Or the secular humanist utopian stripe. Very few are truly scientific and willing to really look at the impact of a theory such as evolution on the human race. But of course that day is coming. The true atheists are coming. By true atheists I mean those who force atheism to mean man not worshipping God but man an animal which wants to be more than an animal and who embarks on a project of making himself something of God by his own hands--humanity transforming itself from the animal stage to the increasingly Godlike stage. But of course these atheists are still tainted with Godlike beliefs of old, because for all their atheism they worship still a type of God--in fact they imagine more than ever what God must be like, should he exist.

God might not exist but the dream of what God must be like necessarily grows stronger. Otherwise we cannot decide at all what we want to be.

"Your background and study may be everything claimed, but there is no way your information is complete. Hardly any former Christian turned atheist, with sound understanding of Christianity uses your formula. I suggest in the future your argument first address why Christian tenets on reasons for evil and suffering, are flawed; rather than put the cart before the horse"

The Christian tenets on evil and suffering revolve around one thing; the expulsion from heaven of an angel who became evil and was from then on known as Lucifer, or Satan.

This "Satan" is the source of all evil. Here is the problem with that; if god is all knowing he would have known that this angel was flawed and would have destroyed him before he could do more damage. Why let him live and cause all the suffering? Why would his desire for affirmation and the "testing" of his created beings be more important than the elimination of suffering?

Pure reason and logic dictate that an all knowing and all powerful god would have maintained control over all his creations; including "Satan".

The fact of man's "free will" is used as a justification of evil. Since when is "free will" an excuse for evil doing? If man is going to eventually be judged for his misdeeds, why allow those misdeeds to go unpunished in this life?

None of this makes any sense to me or any other true "atheist".

"What you have said is simply a copout"--Marcus Pryor

I am sorry you feel that way, but you do not know me. However, let me remind you, it was your post which fixed the formula and affirmed the consequent. So cool it the copout stuff.

Your background and study may be everything claimed, but there is no way your information is complete. Hardly any former Christian turned atheist, with sound understanding of Christianity uses your formula. I suggest in the future your argument first address why Christian tenets on reasons for evil and suffering, are flawed; rather than put the cart before the horse.

regards, joseph jibran

Perhaps many "atheists" are actually "ignostics".

An ignostic is someone who says "I don't understand what you are saying when you talk about God." This seems like a reasonable position to me.

Prayer is a different issue. You can pray to a myth. You can pray to Santa Claus, if you wish.

The big problem is that people have different concepts of what God is.

I personally don't believe in what is implied by most people's conception of God. If someone thinks God is the principle 2+2 = 4, I don't disagree with that, but that doesn't make me an agnostic. If someone thinks that George W. Bush is God, I might have to say that I believe in George W. Bush, therefore would you say I am agnostic? No. When one expresses belief in something, there is an implied context.

I don't believe in the typical conception of God, therefore I am an atheist.

Perhaps many "atheists" are actually "ignostics".

An ignostic is someone who says "I don't understand what you are saying when you talk about God." This seems like a reasonable position to me.

Prayer is a different issue. You can pray to a myth. You can pray to Santa Claus, if you wish.

The big problem is that people have different concepts of what God is.

I personally don't believe in what is implied by most people's conception of God. If someone thinks God is the principle 2+2 = 4, I don't disagree with that, but that doesn't make me an agnostic. If someone thinks that George W. Bush is God, I might have to say that I believe in George W. Bush, therefore would you say I am agnostic? No. When one expresses belief in something, there is an implied context.

I don't believe in the typical conception of God, therefore I am an atheist.

Betsy wrote "Isn't that what you all are saying? I don't mind at all."

Some are, like in any group you have a few bad apples. We had someone on here early under the name anonymous who was quite frankly a 'jerk'. He was an atheist Jerk but we all know theist 'jerks' too. The question is....like I mentioned respect. We can respectfully disagree or we an disagree in a manner which suggests the other person is an idiot. The truth of what you feel can be said in many different ways whether it be theological or views on tax reform. Some are respectful some are down right rude.

Explain to me what you have against calling Atheists-people who don't believe in a Supreme Being/s.
It is how we view ourselves. It's how we define ourselves. You are like a white person who still uses the term Negro. These little differences matter when it comes to respect. We all know which racial group one means when people say Negro, and you can find it in the dictionary. But in the end it is just the disrespectful way to say BLACK.

First I am not angry just concerned. I don't see how my group can be treated fairly in society when society doesn't even know who we are and what we believe which is why I want to clear up misunderstanding. Anger is a very strong emotion and far from what I feel. Concern just pushes one to do the right thing. Yes I would rather be out doing something else right now but I have come across someone (you) who I have a chance to share information that would lend itself to a better functioning society and as a good citizen I feel duty bound to share it.

Second the great Atheists say their is no evidence for god not that they can prove he doesn't exist. As already mentioned...DAWKINS, HARRIS, DENNET,RUSSELL are examples. In fact they all readily admit you can't prove he doesn't exist AND their books are arguments for why we should live according to the idea he doesn't. The 100% proof is indeed impossible but arguments for how we should structure siciety have been vital throughout the ages. Plato-John Stewat Mill-Marx. Just because you can't be 100% certain doesn't mean you shouldn't have the conversation. What can we be 100% certain about.

Are demoncrats wrong to argue about getting out of Iraq fast.....we can never be 100% certain it is the right thing to do. It is about how we shape society. Do we do it on the presumption that their is a supreme being or not. If you don't understand that these great Atheists are getting at this question then maybe you should read some of their books because you are tragically misinformed.

Sorry about the double post. I was having computer problems.

"Some atheists and agnostics believe there is a supreme being or God its just the book and the book waving preachers who take their interpretations of it and preach it to others looking for guidance that many atheists and agnostics have a problem with. And I know many will retort with very dubious and verifiable reasons for their preachings, but it remains an interpretation in a myriad of others around the world. As I understand religion it is a way to bring out the best in people, even though it may bring out the worst. But it warns us that "Hey you are human." Doesn't it?"

This is another example of misunderstanding. By definition atheists do not believe in god. It has nothing to do with variations in theology.

"Some atheists and agnostics believe there is a supreme being or God its just the book and the book waving preachers who take their interpretations of it and preach it to others looking for guidance that many atheists and agnostics have a problem with. And I know many will retort with very dubious and verifiable reasons for their preachings, but it remains an interpretation in a myriad of others around the world. As I understand religion it is a way to bring out the best in people, even though it may bring out the worst. But it warns us that "Hey you are human." Doesn't it?"

This is another example of misunderstnding. By definition atheists do not believe in god. It has nothing to do with variations in theology.

"Absolute consistency in thought is desirable if you have a mental model that successfully accounts for everything in your experience".

I use the scientific model. I understand enough about science to truly believe that science has (or will someday have)all the answers. Just because one individual doesn't know all the answers doesn't mean that science doesn't . Contrast this with a belief in god. No matter how much is learned about "theology", no new answers have evolved in over a thousand years.

This is the philosophy of most atheists.

"This certainly is true for a God that can be contained in your mind. Nonetheless you created a false dilemma because you did not have all the information".

I have all the information available to the inquiring mind. I grew up in a fundamentalist christian home. I studied the bible thoroughly in school and at home.

What you have said is simply a copout. What possible explanation could there be for evil? What kind of god could countenance the suffering in his creation? Just saying we don't have all the answers proves nothing. If you want someone to believe in your god, you have to provide answers.

This all just goes to show how few people are comfortable with the term "agnostic."

I'm too lazy to read the survey, but from the descriptions above I don't see anything weird with the responses.

An agnostic, in general usage, is somebody who is indifferent or unsure on the subject of God. An atheist, in contrast, disbelieves. I'm an atheist - I confidently disbelieve nearly everything that theists claim to know about God. But I have a few data points that I don't know how to fit with the atheism, a few areas where I'm agnostic. And within those areas, I have some definate qualified beliefs. "IF such-and-such is real, which I'm unsure of, then such-and-such is also probably true." Moreover, some of those qualified tidbits are important to me, real to my heart, and supported by some compelling evidence, even though I don't have a neat place for them in my generally godless worldview.

Absolute consistency in thought is desirable if you have a mental model that successfully accounts for everything in your experience. I do not have such a model. But I think that my inconsistent, fuzzy, and qualified model actually does a much better job than it would if I completely purged it of either atheistic or theist ideas. It also appears to me that atheists (and theists) who are more consistent tend to ignore evidence that conflicts with their simplified way of looking at the world.

Some atheists and agnostics believe there is a supreme being or God its just the book and the book waving preachers who take their interpretations of it and preach it to others looking for guidance that many atheists and agnostics have a problem with. And I know many will retort with very dubious and verifiable reasons for their preachings, but it remains an interpretation in a myriad of others around the world. As I understand religion it is a way to bring out the best in people, even though it may bring out the worst. But it warns us that "Hey you are human." Doesn't it?

"It's two words, strictly"

Actually I used the word "term"; not word. A term can be more than one word.

"No god can exist that is all-knowing, all powerful and all loving. He must, by necessity, give up one of the characteristics acclaimed for him."-- Marcus Pryor

This certainly is true for a God that can be contained in your mind. Nonetheless you created a false dilemma because you did not have all the information.

I am not a teacher of Christianity, but you owe it to yourself to discover how the loving God created without compromising Himself,

regards, joseph jibran

.

Some atheists and agnostics believe there is a supreme being or God its just the book and the book waving preachers who take their interpretations of it and preach it to others looking for guidance that many atheists and agnostics have a problem with. And I know many will retort with very dubious and verifiable reasons for their preachings, but it remains an interpretation in a myriad of others around the world. As I understand religion it is a way to bring out the best in people, even though it may bring out the worst. But it warns us that "Hey you are human." Doesn't it?

Some atheists and agnostics believe there is a supreme being or God its just the book and the book waving preachers who take their interpretations of it and preach it to others looking for guidance that many atheists and agnostics have a problem with. And I know many will retort with very dubious and verifiable reasons for their preachings, but it remains an interpretation in a myriad of others around the world. As I understand religion it is a way to bring out the best in people, even though it may bring out the worst. But it warns us that "Hey you are human." Doesn't it?

[QUOTE]
I do not believe a true atheist can believe in a "universal spirit". That is simply another term for "god".
[QUOTE]

It's two words, strictly. And people may disagree with you, since this is simply an interpretation and not a strict definition.

I do not believe a true atheist can believe in a "universal spirit". That is simply another term for "god".

For this reason, I stand by my comment.

"Any belief in god must take into account the undeniable existence of evil."

"No god can exist that is all-knowing, all powerful and all loving. He must, by necessity, give up one of the characteristics acclaimed for him."

Geez. For an atheist, you seem kinda bossy.

Marcus,

I commend you on your purity! And for considering me 'highly evolved', thank you!

However, when you stated that . . .

"Any survey that purports to state that some 'atheists' believe in god simply is a reflection of a misunderstanding of the word 'atheist'."

. . . you misquoted the survey. And since you seem to respect strictness, here is what your statement should have said:

"Any survey that purports to state that some 'atheists' believe in god [OR A UNIVERSAL SPIRIT] simply is a reflection of a misunderstanding of the word 'atheist'."

This, strictly, becomes incorrect - since one can believe in a form of 'universal spirit' (since the definition of which is NOT strict and can be interpreted non-theisticly) and still correctly call themselves an atheist.

Any belief in god must take into account the undeniable existence of evil. This theodicy is going to always haunt god believers no matter how much they study and immerse themselves in doctrine. No god can exist that is all-knowing, all powerful and all loving. He must, by necessity, give up one of the characteristics acclaimed for him.

I am a "pure" atheist in the strictest sense of the word. I do not believe in the supernatural. I do not believe there is a separate spirit; thus there can be no "spirituality". We are simply highly evolved animals; nothing more.

Any survey that purports to state that some "atheists" believe in god simply is a reflection of a misunderstanding of the word "atheist".

"Just because one claims to be an Atheist does not mean they know what the word means. Clearly, all this poll shows is that many people need a dictionary more than they need a bible."-MK

Change a couple words, and the post would read like a John Hagee rail. Bizarre.

regards, joseph jibran

Just because one claims to be an Atheist does not mean they know what the word means. Clearly, all this poll shows is that many people need a dictionary more than they need a bible.

I call myself an athiest because I don't believe in the gods created by the fanatical wing of any of the organized religions (and do not want to be associated with any religion that has killed anyone - or many, see Inquisition, Holocaust - because they don't belong to that religion).

However, I am very spiritual and believe in a universal spirit even if humans haven't yet figured out how to mix that belief with religion without wanting to kill (defame or ostracize) the people who don't belong to that religion.

By the way, for those who are unfamiliar with Greek, atheist means "without god" and does not mean without spirit.

BEYOND THE LABEL wrote :"Betsy #1
What absurd circular logic. You decide that all atheists must believe in God because the religious have decided to define them as people who Deny god. Look at it the opposite way, how would you like it if all dictionaries in largely atheist countries like SWEDEN defined Theists as people who believed in myths and make-believe."

Isn't that what you all are saying? I don't mind at all.

BTL wrote: " While from the atheist world perspective that is certainly true it is an inflammatory and onesided way to define things. It assumes atheists are right. Just as saying Atheists are people who deny god assumes theists are right. Do you see the circular argument. Religious people made a definition based on the fact that their world view is correct and then use said definition to prove themselves correct."

I tremble to reiterate... uh, it sounds as if you are really angry at theists. I hear you saying that you think them inflammatory and onesided in their definition of the word atheist. I would tend to agree that some religious people (certainly not those in this forum) express those qualities. I hear you saying that you are angry that theists have defined the world according to their theistic views. I rather appreciate the clarity which a good atheist or agnostic view brings to a discussion, but it is useless to argue whether god or God exists or not, and therefore who is wrong or right. The best approach is agnostic...leaving the theists to their own devices.

BTL wrote:" Hopefully it will teach you to respect how people define themselves."

Thanks for sharing.

Perhaps the statistic means nothing more than what has always been known; people's belief cannot be pigeonholed. Identifying with a group does not mean agreement on all things .Supposed spokespersons for atheism have the same right to define what constitutes a true atheist as James Dobson and John Hagee have in defining a true Christian; None.

regards, joseph jibran

It doesn't surprise me that so-called Atheists aka Free Thinkers "pray", or believe in something. There is always something beyond what you can know, or expect. Why is it that you are late for a meeting and it turns out that matters worked out better than you "expected". If you experience enough of those questions over a lifetime on "not believing", you may not pray, but you may discover that its worth meditating--say, you join a Yoga group, or Reiki, or some kind of New Agey interest.

Call it what you will, it's prayer, it's meditation, its self-realization, It's been that way for a long time, but the Positive Logicians and their mantra have messed up the world by putting everything in boxes, rather than let things flow.

Anonymous wrote
"However, it may make you feel better to simply call them stupid"
_____________________________________________

I was trying to figure out how after so many people did such a good job of explaining how this result makes perfect sense given the way people choose labels there were so many on the thread still confused. But I think you've got it, it has nothing to do with that fact that it makes sense. It is like when comedians take people words out of context. You've got a bunch of people making strawmen to beat down. How sad a persons must be that they find joy in this purposeful ignorance

By defination they are not ethist in first place if they believe in concepts pushed by organised religions.

Janus,

wonderfully put. You summed up my first comment in only a few lines.

Labels are tools not exact defintions of who people are. If anyone isn't clear how some vegetarians eat meat etc but are still justified in calling themselves vegetarians please look at my first comment Waaaay down the thread.

Though we seem to be getting a great deal of entertainment out of mocking the 21% (They say that they're atheists and that they believe in God! What idiots! Pile on, everyone!), I'd like to point out that this is not exactly how the question is phrased.

"21% of American atheists believe in God or a universal spirit"

Is it possible that many (if not most) of these people said yes to the 'universal spirit' aspect of the question, and define the 'universal spirit' as something not necessarily a deity? If this is the case, then they could they not still rightfully consider themselves atheists (one who believes that there is no deity)?

However, it may make you feel better to simply call them stupid. If so, carry on, and sorry for the interruption.

Betsy #1

What absurd circular logic. You decide that all atheists must believe in God because the religious have decided to define them as people who Deny god. Look at it the opposite way, how would you like it if all dictionaries in largely atheist countries like SWEDEN defined Theists as people who believed in myths and make-believe. While from the atheist world perspective that is certainly true it is an inflammatory and onesided way to define things. It assumes atheists are right. Just as saying Atheists are people who deny god assumes theists are right. Do you see the circular argument. Religious people made a definition based on the fact that their world view is correct and then use said definition to prove themselves correct.

.

As for all the books about how peope don't believe in God. If 85% of the country were argueing that Santa claus existed and you wrote a book about how you didn't believe in Santa because you could find no eveidence for him would you be DENYING santa claus. Replace the word Santa with God and you have the Atheist perspective. You would not be an agnostic on the Santa question you would be atheist.

Finally Go to www.RichardDawkins.net and go to the message board. Ask all the atheists there whether they don't believe in god or whether they Deny God. I know what their anwer will be.I gave you a great resource in the Sam Harris video to what Atheists believe stay ignorant if you wish

Hopefully it will teach you to respect how people define themselves.

This "poll" makes me lose a lot of respect for Pew. Apparently they do not know the definition of an atheist. It's just another ridiculous survey trying to discredit atheists as still believing in god. Closed minded and ignorant people made this survey up. Maybe they need to look up the definition of an atheist again. An atheist does not believe in god!!! Americans are especially clueless when it comes to respecting individuals who are not religious and disregard it as being bogus. There are more important things to worry about in this world than what religion you do or do not subscribe to.

This "poll" makes me lose a lot of respect for Pew. Apparently they do not know the definition of an atheist. It's just another ridiculous survey trying to discredit atheists as still believing in god. Closed minded and ignorant people made this survey up. Maybe they need to look up the definition of an atheist again. An atheist does not believe in god!!! Americans are especially clueless when it comes to respecting individuals who are not religious and disregard it as being bogus. There are more important things to worry about in this world than what religion you subscribe to.

this is too silly by half. i usually have a lot of respect for pew polls, but somebody missed a question here. those 21 percent have to be agnostics who are too dumb to know the difference between atheist and agnostic. by definition, an atheist cannot believe in god. it's the agnostic who might hedge his bets and pray.

These so called atheists you interviewed must be like the swing voters, they go left or right depending on the mood of the day. HA!! That only shows how many people need to look into a dictionary before they labeled themselves into the wrong category. Most atheists I know have higher IQ's than the average believer. Those atheists are all probably from Floriduh!! Ha!!!

I don't identify as an atheist, but I don't wish to be affiliated with any religion. Religion has very little to do with God anymore. It is a social and political network that uses cherry-picked philosophy (that often has very little to do with the the actual teachings of Jesus, Mohammed, etc.) as a central focus to keep its members indoctrinated and controlled. I don't consider evangelicals to be Christian. They vote for whomever their pastor tells them without thinking for themselves. They embrace viewpoints they are told to embrace without understanding the facts. And most of them live a life of hate -- for women who want control over their bodies, for people who choose loving relationships which do not resemble their own, for those who believe in a different deity or have a different philosophy, just to name a few of the groups toward which they direct their hate. Given the choice between identifying with those people, or calling myself an atheist, I'll choose the latter. I actually feel closer to God that way.

this is too silly by half. i usually have a lot of respect for pew polls, but somebody missed a question here. those 21 percent have to be agnostics who are too dumb to know the difference between atheist and agnostic. by definition, an atheist cannot believe in god. it's the agnostic who might hedge his bets and pray.

I don't identify as an atheist, but I don't wish to be affiliated with any religion. Religion has very little to do with God anymore. It is a social and political network that uses cherry-picked philosophy (that often has very little to do with the the actual teachings of Jesus, Mohammed, etc.) as a central focus to keep its members indoctrinated and controlled. I don't consider evangelicals to be Christian. They vote for whomever their pastor tells them without thinking for themselves. They embrace viewpoints they are told to embrace without understanding the facts. And most of them live a life of hate -- for women who want control over their bodies, for people who choose loving relationships which do not resemble their own, for those who believe in a different deity or have a different philosophy, just to name a few of the groups toward which they direct their hate. Given the choice between identifying with those people, or calling myself an atheist, I'll choose the latter. I actually feel closer to God that way.

I think it's clear the questions are either very poorly formulated, or composed with an inherent bias towards finding maximum evidence of religion. By definition 'a theist' means 'no' or 'without' 'god.' Now atheism can imply a lack of belief in a god due to lack of evidence, finding it an irrational concept, and so on. Some atheists may be open to a belief in a deity if provided with appropriate evidence, but that can hardly be considered as 'a belief in god.' I would urge the Pew Forum to correct their data by regathering data with better drafted questions.

I say that the people who took the poll need a dictionary. They obviously don't know the definition of the word "atheist". Those "atheists" who believe in God are not atheists! Big revelation! If the people polled described themselves as "atheists" and then said that they believe in God, then these people didn't actually know the definition of the word "atheist." Bottom line, language requires a consensus in order to work properly. We agree that when we refer to an atheist, we are referring to a person who does not believe in God. Now explain this to those who were polled and take the survey again.

I suspect that if you were to question the 21%, the 12% or the 10% (above) more deeply about their responses, their answers would in many cases be much more nuanced and interesting than simply chalking it up to illiteracy or dishonesty.

Isn't is the slightest bit possible that the problem is not that they don't understand the question, but that we have no interest in understanding the answer.

If not, then I hope you find some comfort in your certainty.

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." - Herbert Spenser

Many people cannot differentiate between atheism, agnosticism, or deism, or even paganism.

You would have to review all the answers this sample population provided to fully understand what they are trying to say.

My guess is that these people are confusing lacking a religious affiliation with lack of belief in a God.

This headline should have read "New Study Finds Americans Need Vocabulary Lesson."

If you believe in God at all you are, by definition, not an atheist. The only thing these polls show is that people are too dumb to know what the words they use mean.

These people who believe in God are not atheists. The definition of
an atheist is one who does not believe in God.

They are agnostics who seem to be covering all the bases, just in case there really is a God.

BETSY(some new Betsy) wrote: "I think it's pretty clear that the questions asked must have been really quite poor or they wouldn't be getting such contradictory results. You can believe in the Force and still be an atheist, but if you ask a Force believer about a "higher power" they will say yes and still not mean a god. And how many of those 10% of atheists who supposedly pray, pray with the expectation that it will actually work? None, I'll warrant. It says far more about the poor design of the poll than anything else.
And a note to those Christian commenters who think they need to evangelize more: leave me out of it."

That was not my post.
Betsyw from now on

JULY 3, 2008 11:54 AM | REPORT OFFENSIVE COMMENTS

How many vegetarians eat meat?
How many monogamists commit adultery?
How many people with sight are blind?
etc...

In response to Daniel from July 2 who said:

Do animals not have the same point of origination as humans? Why is it so 'repulsive' to think that we are nothing more than animals? Cats are much more advanced than some organisms, much like we are more advanced than cats.

I don't believe as an atheist that I necessarily care what others' views are. I simply do not want to be proselytized to on the basis of any religion. Let them believe what they want, whether they are convinced or not. I certainly won't be trying to convince anyone of anything.

Oh please. Why do religious nuts feel compelled to think that those of us who know their beliefs are absurd "really" accept those ridiculous beliefs in some way?

Oh please. Why do religious nuts feel compelled to think that those of us who know their beliefs are absurd "really" accept those ridiculous beliefs in some way?

SIMPLE OBSERVER writs:
"So many have already pointed out the obvious. To be an atheist is to "deny the existence of God or gods".

The whole topic is contradictory. I can't imagine why you would even suggest it as a subject for discussion."

Read through these threads and you'll see any number of religionists stating their belief that, "atheists do believe in god, but they won't admit it."

A poll like the one under discussion is intended to bolster such claims, and if the vested interests need to resort to specious polling techniques to get the result they want, so be it.

Well, the tragedy of illiteracy continues to spread in America .... because apparently there are a lot of people responding to surveys who can't even *define* atheist.

The confusion is a linguistic one: an athiest by classical definition denotes a person that does not believe in God or a higher omnipotent spiritual being or other such being.

Agnostics are as foolish as women who say "I can't decide whether I'm pregnant or not." That is to say, when looked at closely, either one is or is not an athiest. One cannot "abstain" from judging due to "ignorance of the matter" when one is basking in this fantastic world of reality.

The polls show one single and important fact of which Heidegger constantly noted in his writings ("Enowing" e.g). The modern man is overwhelmed, manipulated, reduced and suppressed by technology and its insidious demands of calculation.

We review the charts, graphs, polls and whatnnot but we do not see the humanity. Scientific poll-taking dehumanizes the entire purpose of the questioning. I suppose this important survey was taken over the phone using quickie-bubble-test Q & A's, with no room for pertinent and sensible margin notes.

In the modern world there is neither room nor interest for time-consuming dialectic or investigation; a poll like this takes money to execute and the speed of data-mining over the phone ( or by any other labor-intensive means) has to be considered.

I bet my bottom Dollar that those people who said "Well,what do you mean by that question?" were immediately dumped and classified as "agnostic" or some such thing.

When technology and calculation interfere with faith and religious activities it is inevitable that humanity will lose or be shown to be foolish.

I don't believe in these polls...After all, I am an atheist, and I never get these phone calls regarding my beliefs (or lack of them).

Where are these polls getting these confused people? Are they on the fence? Are they people sick of organized religion, yet so affected (infected) by it, that they need a "god" or "spirit" to focus their wishes and desires (instead of maybe hiring a good therapist?).

I think the poll is flawed, and will just give the sicko Christian Conservative right, more fuel for their fire (the burning bush my butt!) to try and counter why there is a god, and why people should give their lives to him and gulp down the magical red colored Kool-Aid in his name...Amen

Other than that, the poll doesn't prove anything. Yes, there are probably people who profess to be atheist that aren't genuine. But then, I know plenty people that profess to be Christians, and they are anything but!

RICK- what about other shameless earthly created focuses of power? do atheists reject them also or just religious ones?

is it the corruption of the power rejected, or the religiousness of it- or both?

So many have already pointed out the obvious. To be an atheist is to "deny the existence of God or gods".

The whole topic is contradictory. I can't imagine why you would even suggest it as a subject for discussion. As many pointed out, at best, the question should more appropriately be why 21% of "American Atheists" are so dumb that they don't understand the definition of the word Atheist. The real headline from Pew should read more like this:

100% of all Atheists in America deny the existence of God. 21% of those in America who identify themselves as Atheists are either too dumb or too ignorant to understand that they can't be atheists and still believe in God. The problem isn't with their beliefs; it is with an education system that produces students who lack a clear understanding of our language. That is the shame here.

Polls are notorious for causing bad interpretations of statistical data. Either through willful manipulation or honest lack of understanding, the interpreters of the poll are trying to imply that the disbelief in a deity is so contrary to our nature that even atheists 'believe' in a god. I'm still laughing. Responder 'Dr. G.' did a good job in correcting the statistical interpretation. But, the issue always seem to center around whether there is an "invisible man", or "higher authority", or a "master planner". For the religious, they feel that only through the 'worship' of such an entity could one gain some sort of favor that can only be rewarded (or punished), when we are dead. I'm laughing again. It would be more comical were it not for the fact that they also fear offending their god if they don't actively promote their anachronisms, and sometimes violently defend their god's honor against the so-called heathens. It is the frightening truth of our age.

One can discount each of those, believe strongly in the search for truth, (and ourselves), through science, tempered by the scrutiny of the scientific method and still be as spiritual as we were born to be. Spirituality is in fact the search for who, what, and maybe why we are. It *is* what makes us human. It *is* in fact the mother of modern science.

For my part, let's start by separating religion from spirituality. I'm with the late George Carlin regarding the former -- "Religion is B S !" period. Religion is to spirituality what the Twinkie is to nutrition. Although you get a quick sugar rush with every Twinkie moment, you will dearly pay for it later on as your body/soul tries to purge its ill-effects.

Now for spirituality, it's a shame that some amongst the scientific purists, (and I believe they are a very small minority in the scientific community), dismiss spirituality as pure mythology. It's ironic to me that they should call spirituality a myth given how important mythology has been and will continue to be a vital part of the human experience. They need to look no further than any of Joseph Campbell's works including: "The Power of Myth" or "The Hero with a Thousand Faces" to realize that it is mythology that defines us within the context of culture. Mythology continues to evolve as humanity evolves. So, if they want to call spirituality a myth -- I'm OK with that. Just don't equate religion with spirituality. Religion stopped being spiritual many centuries ago.

I can disbelieve and completely discount the "invisible man" theory and still be spiritual. I believe in miracles but not as the act of a deity. If a deity has to intervene, then it's no miracle. It's just a very advanced form of technology. (I'm not about to worship some Klingon!) It's when something just *happens* or just *is* -- that is what constitutes a true miracle. The birth of our Universe is a true miracle. And if it turns out there was no beginning, that would make it the biggest miracle of all.

So miracles can happen without the need of an "invisible man". I'm at awe every time I contemplate the miracle of life or the Universe. It is through awe that my spirituality is expressed.

When I was in high school, I had a class in which we did a short study on the concept of religion. The teacher did a quick survey of the class to see how many of which religion we had. When she got to atheist, the girl next to me raised her hand. I looked at her and said, your're not an athiest, to which she responded, I am too, I swear to god.

As has been noted, people that believe in any kind of god, or force greater than they are, are not true athiests, but since there is not really a catagory that describes people, like myself, that totally reject the concept of all the man made religions, we don't really know what else to call ourselvs.

Once you reach the age, as the late George Carlin put it, of reason, you realize that religion, all religion, was created by man. I believe however, that if one was stranded on an island alone, and never introduced to the concept of religion, that somewhere along the line, he or she would look into the still pond, see their reflection, and begin the process that leads to the inate belief in something greater than self. Who am I, where did I come from, and the search naturally continues for that "thing" that created us. Not just our physical self, but the life force that causes us to ask the who am I question in the first place.

I no longer believe in religion, but the interaction with "god" that I developed when I did, has continued, and prayer is the only word I know of that describes that interaction, and I have had "prayers" answered too many times, in too specific a way not to believe that my "prayers" are being perceived by something. At this point I think my concept of "god" is more like the "force" in star wars. An energy that surrounds and connects us all, and if you engage and interact with it, it will do so in return. I do know one thing, and that is that, as humans, we do not have the capacity to understand the nature of "god". It's like gravity. I don't know HOW it works, I just know that it does. Peace

Any atheist who claims to believe in god, or prays - is simply unaware of what the word Atheist means. Anyone who does know the true meaning of the word an d still claims belief in a God or spends their time praying has a gift for delusional states.

A better question than this one would be "Why don't some Americans know the definitions of words and how to describe themselves properly - and why didn't whoever wrote the original question point that out?"

Let's see what the dictionary has to say about this:

Atheist (noun) - a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Sorry, the people this survey refers to aren't actual atheists, despite may call themselves. I'm guessing they're agnostics - people who think there may be a higher power, but that no one can really know its exact nature - but hey, knowing words to describe beliefs supposedly important to you is hard, right?

These surveyed people have clearly used the wrong word to describe themselves, and I would have thought better of the Washington Post to perpetuate such a mislabeling -
whoever said that the description of these people should be reworded as "self described" atheists was 100% correct. That would fix this problem.

This is either outright clumsiness or an attempt to make actual athiests, myself being one of them, look like they waffle in their own beliefs or don't know what the hell they're talking about, but I hope I'm wrong.

Well, if we're going to talk about strict definitions, then the one for atheist is "one who believes that there is no deity" (I just looked it up in the Merriam Webster dictionary), not necessarily "a disbelief in a higher power", unless you believe that that anything regarded as a "higher power" must be equal to a "deity". If so, then you're absolutely correct - but only from your own point of reference, and I know a number of Buddhists who have a very different one.

I think it's pretty clear that the questions asked must have been really quite poor or they wouldn't be getting such contradictory results. You can believe in the Force and still be an atheist, but if you ask a Force believer about a "higher power" they will say yes and still not mean a god. And how many of those 10% of atheists who supposedly pray, pray with the expectation that it will actually work? None, I'll warrant. It says far more about the poor design of the poll than anything else.

And a note to those Christian commenters who think they need to evangelize more: leave me out of it.

I believe, as atheism is defines ad a disbelief in a higher power, that these atheists are not atheists. I can see, however, eagerly searching for any label that will automatically disassociate you with organized religion. Perhaps this is an issue of the ever-changing connotation versus the stricter denotation of words in the English language.

Personally, I love seeing results like this. Despite our need to categorize people and their beliefs into tidy little boxes that we can turn over and analyze, the reality is always far more complex.

I have always wondered about the need to have people declare allegiances to groups and categories that have been arbitrarily defined by others. It reminds me of an old Irish joke:

A man is visiting Belfast, and is walking back to his hotel at night. Suddenly he is accosted by a man with a black mask and a gun.

"Are you Catholic or Protestant?" He demands.

The visitor replies "Actually, I'm a Jew."

The man with the gun pauses, then asks "Ok ... but are you a Catholic or Protestant Jew?"

So, I'll just throw this out there. All of the following statements are true:

Am I an atheist? Yep.
Do I pray? Yessir. Daily, when I can.
Can I get the things that I want through prayer? Oh - lord no.
Do I have faith in the scientific method? You bet.
Do I believe in a power greater than myself? Sure do.

Don't think that this is possible? Fine with me.

This is nonsensical. At the very least, the question should read, "self-described atheists" and not just "atheists." If they believe in God, they cease being atheists. It's like if you said, "30% of Hondas are made by Toyota." If they're made by Toyota, they're not Hondas. Sigh. I don't know why I even stop by this ridiculous Faith section. It just raises my blood pressure.

Then by definition, they are not atheists. What gives with the stupid question?

Many of you are missing something really obvious here. Atheism is not a total rejection of a life force or giving spirit, or even a rejection of a single god. It is a rejection of theism. Here's a fairly generic description of theism: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/gap.html. I can certainly reject theism(and I do) and still show reverence to a life force (and I do)
-------------------------------
The term "theism," which is taken from the Greek "theos" (god), refers to a belief in one God who is personal and worthy of worship, who transcends the world but takes an active interest in it, and who reveals His goals for human beings through certain individuals, miraculous events or sacred writings. The theistic God is personal in that He can be understood on analogies drawn from a human person and human beings can enter into a personal relation with God, petitioning Him in prayer and referring to Him as "Thou." He is worthy of worship since He is morally perfect and is infinitely knowledgeable and powerful.

Theism is thus a form of monotheism and, as such, should be contrasted with two other forms: pantheism and deism. On the one hand, pantheism is the view that God is identical with the world or at least is completely immanent in the world. On the other hand, deism, sometimes known as the absentee landlord view of God, is the view that God created the world and then had no further interest in it. Theism should also be contrasted with polytheism, the view that there are many gods, as well as with another form of monotheism: the belief in one God who has all the attributes of the theistic God save for His omnipotence; that is, the belief in a finite God.

-----------------------------------------

Atheists tend to object to organized religion, which is essentially a rather shameless, earthly created, focussing of power. As individuals, there shouldn't be any issue with holding that objection while simultaneously acknowledging a one on one possibility of a God or Gods, without the intervening, filtering interpretations.

Hedging their bets!!!!!!!!!!

Atheists that believe in God. Huh? Doesn't that disqualify them from being an atheist, then? Weird.

They aren't atheists then. They are followers of the great church of Justin Case (i.e. just in case I'm wrong, I'll pray).

Some atheists believe in god, but some of the faithful don't really believe in god. If that tells you anything, is that people don't feel comfortable expressing your true beliefs.
It becomes a serious issue when a (then) US President Bush senior made comments about Atheists saying that they should not have US Citizenship. If that is not hate speech, I don't know what is.

Perhaps a more accurate term would be 'agnostic' in this case, instead of 'atheist' but my guess is that these "atheists" may still be spiritual (and even clearly acknowledge that there is some sort of 'higher power' in the universe) while not believing in any sort of 'God' as the term is espoused and understood by organized religion.

Anyone can claim to be an atheist. However, atheism is the belief that gods are nonexistent. We [atheists] cite science over myths.

Look at the Pew data please.

What are the "beliefs" of the 21% of atheists the Pew folks conclude believe in god?

3% of atheists said something Pew construed as "I don't know"
Try interpreting that the next time you ask someone a really important question and get that as an answer.

12% of athiests said they believe in an impersonal force. This may include dumb luck or a falling piano.

6% said they believed in a personal god. Which might include Eric Clapton, I remember seeing a lot of tee shirts expressing such a belief.

It is also noteworthy that only 60% of Catholics believe in a personal god while fully 40 % believe in either an impersonal force or claim not to know. Which speaks well for the independence of mind of members of one of the more centralized religious sects.

"Atheist" precludes God.

A belief in God is mutually exclusive of atheism.

They should have said it was "self-identified" atheists, which would better connote that these are persons unfamiliar with the terms of art.

Betsy-

"What do atheists want? Must one be an atheist to want separation of church and state, choice of abortion etc?"

Absolutely not! I am a pagan with a passionate devotion to the separation of church and state, so that purview is not limited to atheists, and many atheists have rational arguments against abortion. People cannot be defined so narrowly.

From my time here on this forum, I've learned that you can't make blanket statements based on religious belief/non-belief. Some atheists have a live-and-let-live attitude towards religious belief, others can't imagine how anyone with wit enough to draw breath can be so stupid as to have a religious belief. Atheists can be considerate or obnoxious, just like anyone else.

The only commonality I've discovered about atheists is that they don't believe that "supernatural" beings or phenomena exist.

I also once met a self-proclaimed vegetarian - who ate pork.

I guess we all need to dig a little bit deeper to understand what we really believe.

Whether we define ourselves as believers or non-believers depends a lot on how we define belief and how we live our lives. But ultimately, to believe is both a choice and a gift. I can choose to believe that there is a God or is not one. But I can not choose to believe God will heal me. That level of belief is a gift. And that level of faith is easily lost. Once I have that faith it does not mean I will keep it. I have to be grateful and put it to good use.

And gift faith isn't based on visual or auditorial data. Plenty of people see the incorruptibles of France every day and I suspect very few are instantly converted. Seeing does not automatically translate into gift faith though it can for many.

Yet the testimony of the incorruptibles does explain in part why religious fervor is so much stronger in southern France than Northern France. Northern France has Cathedrals - Southern France has miracles.

I saw most of the incorruptibles in a two week trip and while the veins in the hands of a woman dead for 150 years are fascinating - I didn't experience any great renewal in my faith. I believed before and after I saw Saints Maragret, Bernardette, Vincent De Paul, Cure of Ars, and Emyard. But the best show in town is Lourdes. The Grotto - if you don't feel the presence of Mary and Jesus there - you're already half-dead.

There have been over 3000 people who claime they were healed. And almost 80 scientifically verified miracles - so if you not scared Mr or Mrs Atheist to be proven wrong - go take a look.

The answer to this seeming contradiction is simple :

Religious "faith" manifest in prayer is an exercise in effective self-hypnosis for the purpose of alleviating anxiety and/or causing meditative endorphin release .

That atheists would also have occasion to enjoy these self-induced self-hypnotic benefits is no surprise .

Enjoyment of fiction requires the suspension of disbelief . Prayer is a variation on this theme.

We all enjoy a good movie .

Reading the data reveals that what our friends at Pew have construed as meaning that 21% of atheists believe in god is data that says 3% say they don't know, 12 % believe in an impersonal force and 6% believe in a personal god.

Well an impersonal force may be construed as anything at all : say electromagnetism plus natural selection with a touch of the mistral.Maybe dumb luck.

And since when does I don't know constitute an answer? Couldn't pass kindergarten with that one.

And a personal god may include candidates such as Eric Clapton ..I remember the tee-shirts.

Perhaps unremarked is another data line that shows 60% of Catholics do not believe in a personal god but either believe in an impersonal force or " don't know or perhaps "don't care".

Anonymous writes: "Again I am at a loss for how anyone can Deny something they think doesn't exist. It is an oxymoron."

Precisely right, which is why atheists are suspected to be theists who have issues with religion....otherwise they would say there is no ground for even discussing the issue of whether God exists..it is not a live option for discussion....they would simply not care. They would say they are agnostic on the issue.

What do atheists want? Must one be an atheist to want separation of church and state, choice of abortion etc?

HI JEFF-
well it IS called the US RELIGIOUS LANDSCAPE SURVEY-

i dont think they were making a value judgement or trying to define atheism as a religion (or belief system as margaret atwood has) but just including their views in the landscape of belief in america-

i'm not very inclined to regard what sam harris says- in his 'end of faith' he calls for a nuclear first strike on the whole arab world and is a long time supporter and apologist of torture (only against muslims though)

jonny- i'm not going to get this thread in an uproar-
it belongs to the atheists as far as i can see- so i'll repsect your dialogue and read it- but not inject my own faith views into it-

MO:

You just care of the Muslims. Make sure they don't kill each other in the name of their sects, Shia, Sunni, Kurd or whatever.

Remind Muslims that the Quran says: to you your religion, to me mine. Let non-Muslims live in peace among Muslims.

Tell Muslims God is judge of all mankind not Muslims. Let non-Muslims have the freedom to worship any God they please. Didn't Mohammad say that Muslims are only expected to remind non-Muslims but no more?

Garyd :

Obviously, the notion of atheists as an intellectual elite is a bit short of reality.

July 1, 2008 6:21 PM

You can say that again. For nearly twenty months we have been bombarded with "evidence" of how only the super intelligent are atheists.

To follow up on my earlier post . . .

Yes, I did read the full report of the latest Pew survey, and yes, I was aware that the researchers did round up numbers, which is why 7 became 8 and the totals in the tables sometimes exceed 100.

The survey is not all "junk," of course. But just as everyone should expect to go to hell purely as a statistically random result of the number of world religions that he or she is NOT obeying (as Sam Harris remarked), we should expect that the vast majority of social science researchers and survey designers have religious beliefs of some sort or pretend/profess to have them.

The survey design either "invited" respondents to mis-identify themselves as "atheists" or made this error easier, by asking respondents to FIRST describe their religious affiliation:

Q. 16: Q.16 What is your present religion, if any? Are you Protestant, Roman Catholic, Mormon, Orthodox such as Greek or Russian Orthodox, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, agnostic, something else, or nothing in particular?

Note that the question's wording stops just short of labeling atheism and agnosticism as "religions." Only the "if any" stands in the way.

Only if a respondent volunteered "none" or "no religion" or "nothing in particular" would the surveyor ask the respondent a leading follow-up question:

"INTERVIEWER: IF R VOLUNTEERS “nothing in particular, none, no religion, etc.” BEFORE
REACHING END OF LIST, PROMPT WITH: and would you say that’s atheist, agnostic, or just
nothing in particular?"

differentiality and divisionism among mankind.

QURAN.s10.v19,
mankind were but one community(ie.on one religion of monotheism)then they differed(later)and had not it been for a word that went forth before from your lord it would have been settled between them regarding what they differed.

1-the creator of mankind is one,and the father of mankind (adam) is also one ,and the physical apperance of mankind is one and the fate of every mankind is also one (every body live and die),so what is and where is the axis of differentiality and divisionism?why people differ?and for how long ?do they ever stop differeing?they created to differe ?differe aganist what ?what is the subject and the space ?

2-according to an authentic narration,mankind from adam till noah ,they were on pure monotheism ,then they differe.

3-the religion of monotheism (tawheed)is the axis and the subject of differentiality and divisionism among mankind,in other word deviation from monotheism is the cause of divisionism and quarrellism among mankind.

4-would the family of mankind ever stop differeing ?NO,they may integrate but still differentiate into believe and disbelieve.

5-looking at the world religion map,you may be able to see the above.

6-monotheism and differeing around monotheism is the problem and the solution.

7-according to an authentic narration ,
jews divided to 70 divisions
christians divided to 71division
muslims will divid to 72 division .

with all the above divisions and sub division that mankind may embrace or lable ,who is right and who is wrong ? is it a choice or obligation?why and how long ?why mankind put to this test?what is the reward and what is the penality ?

Haven't read the study, so I cannot fully grok what "belief", god, universal "spirit" are in the context of the survey. What follows is gutless opinion.

What I will call "cultural atheism", for me, is the belief that the prevailing theism is false. In my community, my culture, the prevailing theism is christianity. Of the falseness of this theism, I have no doubt. Unfortunately my *certainty* cannot be tested with evidence. But, intuitively, I *know*, god did not arrange to be born of an unsullied woman, executed by committee, raised from the dead, all for the purpose sharing eternity with such primitive creatures as us. I will call such a proposition ridiculous in the face of all that exists.

This does not preclude a sense of awe, not only of the seemingly limitless expanse of mere existence, and the measure of what we can know, but more importantly, the measure of what we cannot completely know, which has been proven to be unknowable.

Faith is ridiculous; intuition is functional; knowledge is universal, reproducible, teachable, yet, by its very definition never complete. This incompleteness provides for, in me, the wiggle room to account for prime movers or other such "spiritual" conjecture that can only be experienced, yet never formally proved, by the experience of existence. Be or not be; is or is not; before and after. I will never be able to learn enough math to know the final truth, because the math has been proven not to exist. Better to read Shakespeare.

I am an atheist, but I believe I know god as well as anyone ever has.

--FIUS

Speaking of how atheists define themselves.

Some of my favorite atheist qoutes that help explain how we view ourselves.

"Everyone starts out being an atheist.No one is born with belief in anything." Andy Rooney

"When you understand why you dismiss all other gods then you will understand why I dismiss yours." Stephen F. Roberts

Okay Anonymous I am going to have to come to Betsy aid a minute here.

I am an atheist and have been my whole life but I care about the religious and their beliefs.

I have read the Bible and the Koran, read up on Hinduism, Bhuddism and Scientology not because I ever believed in them but I accept that I share this planet, CARE about other people who inhabit it and therefore CARE about their beliefs.

Everyone should care about what others believe even if they don't believe it. The reason we have so many problems is that people don't care enough to understand what others believe. We have just established that Betsy had a view of Atheists that very few if any Athiests actually have. Hopefully she will watch the 5min clip I suggested and hopefully you will take a minute to engage believers in a civil manner so that you can atleast learn their view. How can you interact with people you don't understand. Again you don't have to believe it but you should atleast know it!

Anonymous :

Again I am at a loss for how anyone can Deny something they think doesn't exist. It is an oxymoron.

Your defiition only works in the minds of people who believe in God. Think about it a moment.
____

Yeppy. YOUR problem is that you begin with the premise that your imaginary friens is REAL.

Of COURSE you don't understand a DENIAL which doesn't exist.

Not only does no one BELIEVE in your imaginary friend, no one CARES.

To everyone. esp. Betsy

Misconceptions about Atheism is a segment of a talk Sam Harris (one of the famous NEW ATHEISTS and bestselling Atheist Author) gave at the Aspen Ideas Festival.

You can watch hosted for free at www.fora.tv just type his name into the search bar. Then when you get to the aspen ideas talk click the chapter about misconceptions. I would encourage everyone to watch the whole thing though it is excellent.

It clears up many ideas like that Atheist DENY God.

Betsy:

... of the term "atheist" is the one commonly used.
_____

Commonly used by WHOM?
_____

The more passive role you describe seems to me to be an agnostic position.
_____

Well, I'M hep to the rebop, daddy-o.
Agnostics are certainly passive p!ssants, ain't they?

Jonny wrote:The definition of an atheist is one who doesn't believe YOU.

I certainly hope everyone thinks for himself/herself.

Okay then explain to me how you can deny something that you think doesn't exist.

Can you Deny Santa Claus?

The definition you find depends on the person who wrote it. The older definition used was indeed DENY but then the old definition of PAGAN is even worse.

Agnostism is weaker. Atheists say they don't believe in God. Agnostics say they don't know whether or not there is a god. They are broken down into two groups. Agnotictheists and Agnoticatheists. Which describes which way they lean.

I have read Dawkins,Harris Russel and Dennet and many other major Atheist voices and I assure you the common theme is not any sort of DENIAL it is Disbelief. Their books explain their disbelief much as I could explain to you why I don't believe in Santa Claus. They are not actively denying God. In fact even the most hard nosed such as Dawkins says you could never completely disprove the existence of God since you can't prove a negative, so he says there is no real point in trying. Again explaining why you don't belive something isn't actively DENYING it. It you think that is what atheists are then I don't think there is a single one in the world but I can see why such a misinterpretation could lead to much of the misunderstanding the religious have of atheists.

Again I am at a loss for how anyone can Deny something they think doesn't exist. It is an oxymoron.

Your defiition only works in the minds of people who believe in God. Think about it a moment.

BTL wrote; "So no my being an atheist is not rooted in argueing against there being a God. It is rooted in the fact that I believe in what I have observed in the natural world and as I have not seen evidence that suggests a diety. Thus I do not believe in one. It is more of a passive role. One does not actively deny the existence of Unicorns or a teapot that circles the earth or a flying spaghetti monster. By the same token I do not deny God. I just don't believe as you don't believe in the Hindu God Ganesh. Or the Roman God Zeus."

You are welcome to redefine terms here. I'm not interested in arguing semantics, however the definition, religious or otherwise, of the term "atheist" is the one commonly used.

The more passive role you describe seems to me to be an agnostic position.

minor note

That should have read

"Atheist-someone who does not believe in a God/Gods."

Just so as not to confuse atheism with some sort of Polytheism. I also think that pantheism and pandeism would also be precluded using this deifintion.

Betsy :

The definition of an atheist is one who denies the existence of God.
_____

The definition of an atheist is one who doesn't believe YOU.

Maybe you're all tied up with some god. Maybe not.

Betsy,
The definition that an Atheist is someone who DENIES god is a definition written from the stand point of a theist.

A less controversial definition is

Atheist-someone who does not BELIEVE in God.

A=not
theist=someone who believes in a diety or dieties

So no my being an atheist is not rooted in argueing against there being a God. It is rooted in the fact that I believe in what I have observed in the natural world and as I have not seen evidence that suggests a diety. Thus I do not believe in one. It is more of a passive role. One does not actively deny the existence of Unicorns or a teapot that circles the earth or a flying spaghetti monster. By the same token I do not deny God. I just don't believe as you don't believe in the Hindu God Ganesh. Or the Roman God Zeus.

Do you see the difference between denying something and disbelieving something.

I also hope, out of respect, you will retire your very loaded and inaccurate religious definition of athiest for the secular one...esp when speaking with atheists.

Huang Po said that humans were like pearls in a bowl - all mutually unaware of one another. He said, 'Humans and Buddhas do not mutually perceive one another'.

'There are no entities, and no individually existing objects. We argue about the truth or falsity of events forever, never proving anything. Since we live only a few short years, what is the purpose of endless argument, when the final solution will never be known to us?'

Huang Po was one who seemingly experienced reality directly, in the Zen fashion. The substance of truth is one, and is 'neither this nor that'....... there are no winners or losers.

Huang Po said that humans were like pearls in a bowl - all mutually unaware of one another. He said, 'Humans and Buddhas do not mutually perceive one another'.

'There are no entities, and no individually existing objects. We argue about the truth or falsity of events forever, never proving anything. Since we live only a few short years, what is the purpose of endless argument, when the final solution will never be known to us?'

Huang Po was one who seemingly experienced reality directly, in the Zen fashion. The substance of truth is one, and is 'neither this nor that'....... there are no winners or losers.

The definition of an atheist is one who denies the existence of God.
Are you all claiming to be atheists, and therefore are you all arguing that God does not exist?

wiccan :

Jonny-

... There's a dearth of level-headed, no nonsense thinkers and we need all we can get.
_____

No commercial demand for'em. Not here in th' USA, at any rate.

Betsy:

I suspect you know very few atheists. I am one and count many among my friends and none of us feel the way you described. We do however have a concensus that not only would we not keep company with someone who had such disrespect for our views but we can think of very few atheists who would. Which leaves me wondering just how many atheists you've had meanful conversations with to come to this farfetched conclusion about how we don't believe what we say we believe.

For you to say you know us better than we know ourselves means you must have an awful lot of insight. Prey tell, what qualifies you to do this? How many conversations did you have with atheists, how were you able to look so deep into their underlying phychs and see their 'true' beliefs.

-Austin

Betsy:

I suspect you know very few atheists. I am one and count many among my friends and none of us feel the way you described. We do however have a concensus that not only would we not keep company with someone who had such disrespect for our views but we can think of very few atheists who would. Which leaves me wondering just how many atheists you've had meanful conversations with to come to this farfetched conclusion about how we don't believe what we say we believe.

For you to say you know us better than we know ourselves means you must have an awful lot of insight. Prey tell, what qualifies you to do this? How many conversations did you have with atheists, how were you able to look so deep into their underlying phychs and see their 'true' beliefs.

-Austin

Jonny-

"To thine own self be true." There's a dearth of level-headed, no nonsense thinkers and we need all we can get.

OH-Kay. Here comes a generally phony cliche -- but not in my case. Not that what follows is any kind of in-depth study -- just personal observation, totally unsupported and anecdotal.

HOWEVER -- I have at least one old friend who is a self-proclaimed Wiccan. And I am also acquainted first-hand with Native American beliefs, having grown up in Rez country.

I am of the opinion that both of these faiths are much more HUMAN than the major worldwide monotheisms. They make more sense.

HOWEVER -- it's still just crap ta me. When I say they make MORE sense, I mean they make NO sense -- except in a more humanistic acceptance than dictated monotheism.

I am sorry. Some of this SHOULD make more sense -- but it does not.

I've yet to come across a supernaturalism which does. Worldwide.

And I've been at this a helluva long time.

It's all right, Jonny, I can understand where you're coming from.

On another thread we had a neat little conversation about quantum physics, and I wondered that if observation could affect a quantum particle, why not will? My son, his friends, and I had a great discussion on how different universes and/or dimensions could exist in "membranes", and what would happen if these "membranes" met. Frankly, it's all over my head, but I still find it fascinating. Like I said below, I don't think we've figured it all out yet.

wiccan :

It's my humble opinion that we haven't discovered all the laws yet.
_____

Of course we haven't. But all the ones we DO know about have been perceived by the scientific method.

Which has a 100% track record, as opposed to Ooga-Booga, with its 0% track record.

MY point is -- undiscovered laws AIN'T supernatural. No way, no how. Not by the track record.

I'm just goin' on what we know SO FAR, wiccan. If a Great Ooga-Booga rises up outta the hills & mystery-forces me into bein' a livin' Tiki, I'm the FASTEST believer you ever saw. Guaranteed.

Hell, my first GHOST'll do that for me. ;)

Farnaz-

From Wikipedia:

"The term supernatural or supranatural (Latin: super, supra "above" + natura "nature") pertains to entities, events or powers regarded as beyond nature, in that they cannot be explained by the laws of the natural world."

Quite a few people have had experiences that do not seem to be governed "by the laws of the natural world."

It's my humble opinion that we haven't discovered all the laws yet.

wiccan :

Calm down, Jonny, chill!

By no means am I an Uber-human, or special, or not a poor schlub like any or everyone else. I just asked if that you haven't experienced these things that they can't be experienced. I did not mean to seem to undervalue you as a human in any way. OK?
______

OK, ok. Sorry if I seem snappish -- but I'm in my 6th decade on this earth and I tend to associate extra-human "experiences" with sub-human con-artists.

Or self-deceiving fools.

I got nothin' else to go on, even when confronted with testimonials & eyewitness anecdotes (which don't mean d!ck, in the absence of empirical evidence.) Nothin'.

I am sorry that I bit yer head off -- it's just that I'm TIRED, dog-TIRED, of human stupidity.

'Kay?

Farnaz:

I've had the same kinds of experiences. Listening to one of them probably saved my life. I don't know what it was. Don't think it was God, but it was over and above what I usually think of as natural.

Calm down, Jonny, chill!

By no means am I an Uber-human, or special, or not a poor schlub like any or everyone else. I just asked if that you haven't experienced these things that they can't be experienced. I did not mean to seem to undervalue you as a human in any way. OK?

Wiccan,

What does supernatural mean? I prefer the term agnostic as Husxley defined it (I posted this on the
Carlin thread), but I have had uncanny nonrational experiences, and I'm not alone.

They were recognizable forebodings, significantly different from worry or anxiety, whose content, in both cases were born out by events. Further, no one had confidence in what I was experiencing (I, all by my lonesome, wondered if I was losing my sanity), and were shocked when what I feared transpired.

How does one classify such experiences?

Farnaz
INFADEL

wiccan :

"Do you mean to say that if you have not experienced these, no one else has either?"
_____

Try again. Do you mean to say that if you HAVE, experienced these, you're outside the experience of the rest of us poor schlubs?

You're SPECIAL? You're UBER-HUMAN?

Jonny-

"Never seen a ghost. Never had a revelation. Never had visions. Never been affected by mysterious "forces" or "energies."

Never. Not once. Not ever."

Do you mean to say that if you have not experienced these, no one else has either?

Betsy :

"In their hearts, most atheists believe in God...."

Evidence? As opposed to unsupported assertion?

"Their arguments against the existence of God are no more compelling or convincing than a theist's argument for the existence of God."

I'm an atheist, and I've never mounted an argument "against the existence of God" in my life. I simply don't believe unsupported assertions.

"It would be more logically valid for all of those who question God's existence to say they are agnostic...holding that there is no way to prove or disprove the point and there is not enough evidence either way to even take up the argument."

Pfui. Either one believes the claims or one does not. OF COURSE no one can "disprove the point." One can NEVER disprove a bald-faced assertion ... or prove a negative.

One CAN, of course, identify a beginning premise, an assertion, and believe it or not ... regardless of the utter lack of evidence in support of the assertion.

Otherwise, faith is totally unnecessary -- a canard.

"It is much more difficult emotionally to dismiss the whole notion of God as irrelevant than to continue to argue against God much as a child argues against a parent."

No, it isn't. Nyahhh.

"Most atheists I know are really angry at the churches for failing to deliver on promises."

You confuse anger with contempt.

"But they really would like someone to somehow convince them that God exists despite all human arguing."

The failure of supernatural argument does not transfer at all or suppose or support a longing on anyone's part for its success.

For instance, were you to make an argument as dismal as that of Thomas Aquinas, it would not mean that I'm rooting for your success. All it means is that you're not even as good as Aquinas.

Betsy: Most atheists I know are really angry at the churches for failing to deliver on promises. But they really would like someone to somehow convince them that God exists despite all human arguing.
___________

No thanks. I'm not looking for anyone to "convince" me about the existence or nonexistence of God. What I'm looking for is a government free from lobbyists supported by institutionalized religions, a curriculum that is free of the supernatural, a Supreme Court whose decisions are filtered through the lens of law, law based on morality. Put differently, I'm looking nearly two-and-a-half centuries into US history for separation of "church" and state.

In their hearts, most atheists believe in God. Their arguments against the existence of God are no more compelling or convincing than a theist's argument for the existence of God. It would be more logically valid for all of those who question God's existence to say they are agnostic...holding that there is no way to prove or disprove the point and there is not enough evidence either way to even take up the argument.

It is much more difficult emotionally to dismiss the whole notion of God as irrelevant than to continue to argue against God much as a child argues against a parent. Most atheists I know are really angry at the churches for failing to deliver on promises. But they really would like someone to somehow convince them that God exists despite all human arguing. Ignoring God is a complete break from the whole idea.

I don't mean to ridicule "feelings" -- I share all the human senses.

EXCEPT the ones outside common human experience.

Never seen a ghost. Never had a revelation. Never had visions. Never been affected by mysterious "forces" or "energies."

Never. Not once. Not ever.

Yet I can smell violets. I can feel velvet.

Et flippin' cetera.

See?

VICTORIA :
jonny- but feel- we can feel- you to yours and me to mine- but i definitely can feel the god-
_____

Which one?

No, no ridicule. Really. Which one? Big one? Small one? Good one? Nasty one? ALL of'em?

Cut and paste problems in the lat post fixed here.

A "Black Vegetarian Athiest" may infact be a "Bi- Racial Pescatarian Humanist" but as there are generally too many labels to memorize so we just go with the well known umbrella terms. The only people who are confused are those who think that they can judge everything about a persons beliefs/characteristics by the umbrella term they use.

I used to do a tolerance workshop in high schools and one of the mini-subjects was labels.
We talked about how labels can't tell the whole story but that they are generally effective way that people use to explain there preferences to the world.

To take the vegetarian example you have many subgroups
1.Vegan (no animal products)
2.Ovo-Lacto vegetarians (will eat eggs and diary)
3.Pescatarians (eat fish but no mammals or poultry)
4.My friend Melissa who only eats meat at her matriarchial grandmother so as not to disrespect her.

All these groups generally classify as vegetarian so they can fuction in the world (ie. get the right meal on an airplane) but that doesn't mean that it is the whole story.
The same is true for the way many people define their sexuality (Gay, Straight, Bisexual) We have certain ideas that are attached to the labels but often people adopt them for simplicities sake. The gay person who is actually a little bisexual or the straight person who had some same-sex experiences they enjoyed but now married to an opposite-sex person they don't see the point in identifying as bisexual.
The list of examples goes on and on.
That this should be the case for religious/atheists is no surprise. People adopted their label because it best fits how they exist in the world not because it is a perfect definition of who they are. People need to understand the usefullness and limitations of labels in all these and many other arenas.

Respect there is a reason they chose that label but also respect that a person is not their chosen label.

A "Black Vegetarian Athiest" may infact be a "Bi- many labels for us all to memorize so we Racial Pescatarian Humanist" but as there are toogenerally just go with the well known umbrella terms. The only people who are confused are those who think that they can judge everything about a persons beliefs/characteristics by the umbrella term they use.
-Austin

thanks for the links wiccan- those are some exponential growth numbers there-

hi henry- to answer your questions- yes yes yes yes no and yes

jonny- but feel- we can feel- you to yours and me to mine- but i definitely can feel the god-

feel free to ridicule-

peace all!

Merry Meet, Priver!

From your lips to the Lady's ears.

I'm going to get myself in trouble here, but I get a case of the giggles when someone says "supernatural", when I find that what they're discussing is usually, TO ME, perfectly natural. Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks.

MMA Wiccan! How's summer treating you?

Thanks for those survey posts- I knew when our little local community went from under 50-over 200 in the span of about 2 years that there's certainly something to that idea of hiding in plain sight. Can't help but wonder what the numbers are these days.

I just hope that one day there will be no more need for the broom closet.

Henry James :
... God is something we can't comprehend....
_____

Or define. Or support. Or justify. Or explain. Or even observe ....

Most people aren't REALLY SURE what they mean
when they say they "believe in God."

So it's not too surprising that people who say that they DON"T believe in God are also somewhat confused.

Do people who believe in God think
-He hears and answers prayers?
-Is all powerful?
-Created the earth?
-Is a definaable personage?
-Has intelligence, reason, and motivation?

No No NO no no . No unanimity.

God is something we can't comprehend. No wonder we are confused.

Sorry! Anonymous was me.

Jeff D:

Great post! Do surveys all the time. Haven't seen junk like this in my professional life.

Wiglaf

Victoria-

Actually, it's hard to tell. The last ARIS study was done in 2001; I think it's safe to say our numbers have increased since then. The second website I listed points out that many pagans will not identify themselves as such because of a very real fear of violence or discrimination. The last time a pollster asked what religion I was hung up on me when I told her I was Wiccan. Others who have indentified themsvelves as Pagan have not been as lucky.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_nbr3.htm

most big polls go to 1,00,000- but can only ask a very few extremely general undefined questions-

this one covered 35,000 and had many specific breakdowns within groups-

so what are the stats for pagans in america then? and who is excluded and included?

Norrie! I've missed you! Hope all is well with you and yours, especially those delightful critters, the Maine Coons.

The Pew study seems poorly designed and the polling group nowhere near as big as it should have been. (A little pique here; Pagans weren't mentioned at all.) It would be interesting to redo the study after these flaws are fixed, and see how things shake out.

Norrie Hoyt :

Someone should have told the self-described "atheists" that atheists don't believe in any kind of God.
_____

I have no objection to the term "atheist," -- it's fine by me, I like it, I'll admit to it freely, and it DOES describe me, as far as it goes.

But, to me, it does not go far enough. I do not believe in the supernatural at all. That includes supernatural "forces" and "energies," et al, as well as supernatural beings or realms.

As it is, though, what with the failings of human language -- it's a good enough term for me.

This doesn't mean that I reject the claims of supernaturalists, theists, or magical thinkers arbitrarily -- it's just that I won't let them try to define MY criteria for evidentiary support. And their track record regarding evidentiary support for their assertions has been abysmal all along, by my criteria.

That's what p!sses them off, I suspect.

Someone should have told the self-described "atheists" that atheists don't believe in any kind of God.

what is extraordinary to my mind is the way fundamentalist atheist decry other atheists-

one cannot help but notice the identical behavior from fundamentalist christians (or muslims, or jews, or hindus, or buddhists,or pagans) who claim to speak and represent the "true" face of their co-religionists!

i, as a muslim, find i have , in real life- a great deal more in common with a liberal jew or pagan than a conservative muslim-

so it becomes the fundamentality vs. the liberal-broad

and apparently atheists can be just as judgemental and exclusionary as any other group!

JD- I don't know if you read the whole report, or just looked at the charts at the end-

on pp 30-32 you can find the breakdown thus-

under
-- Unaffiliated-
Atheist
Agnostic
Secular unafiliated
Religious unaffiliated

i'll post only responses by atheists within the unaffiliated group heading

Q- NATURE AND CERTAINTY OF BELIEF IN GOD

Personal God- 3%
Impersonal God- 4%
Less Certain-- 13%
Don't believe-- 73%
Don't know-- 6%

i find it interesting that only 73% of atheists don't believe in god- you would think it would be more, wouldn't you?

Q- HOLY BOOK IS WORD OF GOD

7%
Literal- 3%
Written by men-88%
Dont know 5%

so, 7 + 3= 10% of atheists believe holy books are the word of god- and 3% believe it literally-

Q- BELIEF IN THE AFTERLIFE

Belive- - - - - - - 18%
Absolute certainty--5%
Fairly less certain-8%
Not sure- - - - - - 5%
Don't know- - - - - 75%

so, i find that your assertion that
"3) [most of all] terrible imprecision and sloppiness in how "God" was defined for purposes of the survey questions."
somewhat overstated- as the same definitions were provided for the religious-

what other defintions would you have them break it down to? personal and impersonal seems pretty fair- hardly 'terribly imprecise or sloppy"

also you'll notice that the numbers don't always add up to 100% because they round the number sup ACROSS THE BOARD FOR ALL GROUPS-

so, if 7 becomes 8- i don't think it is a conscious intent to misrepresent as you contend-

i could complain that the numbers for musims are greatly under reprented, as they are-

instead of taking the roles from attendance in mosques (as they do for other tallys) they use the numbers from their previous 2007 poll-

the numbers from national statistics of mosque attendance are 7-10 million muslims, which is over 2% of the population-

which is a full 2/3 more than the stated number of .6%

but still- the numbers are interesting enough by themselves-

in a further breakdown- a remarkable 2% of college graduate atheists have ABSOLUTE BELIEF IN A PERSONAL GOD!
the less educated, the higher te numbers-

this is mind boggling-
i guess the conclusion could be reached that, just as there is in every single group or category of human beings-
there is a disparity and philisophical difference of opinions among atheists as wee-

welcome to the fallible human race!

"21% of American atheists believe in God or a universal spirit, 12% believe in heaven and 10% pray at least once a week. What do you make of this?"
_____

What do I make of it?

Considering the undeniable truth that 50% of human beings are below average in intelligence, I'd say that the above-cited percentages of people who don't know what the hell they are is par for the course.

ANGELA

You wrote, "In closing, ordinances (take for instance, communion; which is remembrance of Christ, not the physical body of Christ), and trying to be a better person doesn't make you a Christian either."

When the Holy Spirit came into my body, He revealed to me that the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus. It is that simple. Jesus, very clearly said, "This IS My Body", "Take and eat", and He also said, "Do this in rememberance of Me", ignoring what Jesus clearly said does not change what He said and meant.

As I said very simply, God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof, I really do not know how to say it any simpler or clearer. Some have a "Christian" heart that don't even believe in God while others that believe that Jesus is Who He Is, God-Incarnate, do not, only God can see into the heart.

God's Plan is for ALL OF HUMANITY to be with Him in His Kingdom, the new heavens and the new earth, and God's Plan will come to Fruition.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Great post Jeff D.

Wow! 21% of 'atheists' believe in God or a Universal Spirit?!?!?! Did Pew have some summer intern write the questionnaire or something? I have been looking for the actual questions asked, but the stated results are tooootally bizarre. Atheists believing in the supernatural?!?!? Lumping god-believers (theists) with Universal Spirit-believers (deist?). I use to think Pew was a pretty sharp group.

Can we please have a non-believer write one of these questionnaires?

Well, the fundies have folks condemning themselves to hell yet again - God didn't do it, but God will rescue.....because the omnipotent, omniscient God is blameless in a world filled with both good and evil - although He created it from start to finish. But check out the Devil - God's perfect scapegoat.

Sounds very capricious to me - a perfect Supreme Being that creates humans at His whim, only to have most fall into the fiery pit of hell for all eternity.....this does sound suspiciously like a 'trial and error' operation. Maybe God hasn't gotten the hang of this 'creation' business quite yet!

Salvation is alot like winning the lottery - first you have to know about the lottery, then you've got to buy tickets on a regular basis, and lastly, you've got to guess (believe?)with infallible precision.

Otherwise, you've wasted your money - and you will be punished! And Angela's theory of predestination? All thanks to John Calvin's brand of Protestantism....and how are Protestants in any way superior to their progenitors, the Catholics? They're not....

How would believers fill the vast void that would be left if their religious beliefs were suddenly vacated? Imagine being afflicted with a case of global amnesia, where you had to start all over again, accumulating a brand new belief structure and all-new world view.....just like a very small child - and not surrounded by believing Christians.

What would be your fate then?

gregory smith the co-author of the pew study being discussed is on wahington journal on c-span this morning-

Good Morning,

Thomas Baum, you're absolutely right; individuals are responsible for themselves ending up in hell. In addition, God is a forgiving God and he's also a just God. And yes, God has predestined those who were called before the foundation of the earth to be his children. Repenting, putting our faith and trust in God and believing Him makes us His children: a Christian and of course, not religious affiliation. Also, yes, God is a searcher of hearts and minds and He knows who are His and who are not and He also states that the natural heart of man is exceedingly wicked and his mind does not even search after God. In closing, ordinances (take for instance, communion; which is remembrance of Christ, not the physical body of Christ), and trying to be a better person doesn't make you a Christian either. False doctrine and misinterpretations of the meaning of scripture has and will continue to deceive the elect.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:

CCNL : "40 to 44 million Americans, or approximately one quarter of the US population, are functionally illiterate, and another 50 million have marginal literacy skills."

CCNL : "21% of American atheists believe in God or a universal spirit, 12% believe in heaven and 10% pray at least once a week."

And about 70 million Americans have passports. The literate ones?

Illiteracy = religious illiteracy?

I am not not from an advanced country, so I am not literate and can't respond to your freelance survey for a handful of Muslims in On Faith.

Don't pop a vein.

Cheers
"J"

Jeff D:

Excellent post. Thank you. I've read the summary and have started on the full report. I doubt I'll have anything to add to what you've written, though.
I can only assume that Quinn and the panelists didn't read the report.

Farnaz

What do you make of a significant number of American atheists saying they believe in God, heaven and praying, etc.?

Obviously the easy answer to the question is ignorance on the part of Americans (not knowing the meanings of terms) or flawed methodology on questioning Americans on religion, but I want to offer an alternative explanation, and that is that concepts such as God, heaven, prayer, etc. are difficult to eradicate entirely from our thinking and that in fact they leave traces no matter how atheistic we become.

Take for example the field of politics. For all advances of science--especially the theory of evolution proposed--we all are essentially in our politics in a prescientific worldview. We certainly do not act on the theory of evolution. What I mean to be clear is that on one hand in the U.S. we have the republicans who are more religious than the other party and more oligarchical too, but the other party for all lack of religion and belief in secularism, materialism, etc. is a party probably more utopian than the rightwing and in that sense has really not escaped a belief in God but only replaced religion with something of a hope of heaven on earth.

In fact we can say if an atheist truly does not believe in God he or she will hold really only two different types of politics: either a politics of anarchy, nihilism, or one which is neither of the right or left today but rather a politics which embraces the theory of evolution and asks which humans today are most worthy of reproducing to carry the human race as high as it can possibly get. In short true politics according to atheistic belief must be either anarchical or elitist. And here is where it gets interesting: a politics of anarchism of course does away with all traces of God, heaven, prayer, but a politics of elitism while reducing a belief in God and increasing a belief in evolution finds itself stuck with traces of God belief in the sense that a politics of elitism rejects that we will be stuck at the animal level we are now...In fact a politics of elitism is one which strives through science to move us from the animal level to the Godlike level...

So we can see that no matter how atheistic a person becomes he or she is still liable to traces of God belief unless of course embracing nihilism. The question really is not what it means that some American atheists believe in God, heaven and prayer, but how many American atheists really have traces of God belief for all their professed atheism.

I have read both the full report and the summary of this latest Pew "religious landscape" survey.

The full report stated, "Yet there are significant differences in the exact nature of these beliefs and the intensity
with which people hold these beliefs. For example, while most Americans believe in God, there is considerable variation in the certainty and nature of their belief in God."

Survey Question 30 was "Do you believe in God or a universal spirit?"

Question 31 was "How certain are you about this belief? Are you absolutely certain, fairly certain, not too certain, or not at all certain?"

Question 32 (p. 229 of the full report) was "Which comes closest to your view of God? God is a person with whom people can have a
relationship or God is an impersonal force?"

The table showing answers to Q. 32 lumps all the "unaffiliated" respondents together and shows 28 percent believing in a personal God, 35 percent believing in an impersonal force, 22 percent saying they didn't believe in God, and 8 percent giving other answers classified as not believing in a God or universal spirit.

It's obvious to me that the "finding" that 21% of American "atheists" believe in "God" is a result of --

(1) a small sample size for the group of nonbelievers / unchurched / no religion [on p. 177 of the full report, the margin of error for the 5,048 religiously "unaffliated" respondents out of the total sample population of about 35,500 is shown as + or minus 2 percent], AND

(2) the unwillingness of some atheists to appear closed to some sort of transcendent experience or "something grand out there," AND

(3) [most of all] terrible imprecision and sloppiness in how "God" was defined for purposes of the survey questions.

In the summary report's table showing the survey results on Americans' "conception of God," 60 percent of the total sample population said they believed in a "personal god," 25 percent said they believed in god as an "impersonal force" (I guess this means a non-intervening force), and 7 percent had some other concept of "god." That's how the report got to 92 percent "net belief in God" for the entire sample population.

Of the sub-population of self-described "atheists," only 6 percent believed in a personal god. How can this be anything other than confusion, sampling error, or mis-labeling of respondents as atheists? 12 percent of the "atheists" said they believed in god as an "impersonal force" (maybe they are Spinozan pantheists), and 3 percent gave "don't know" or some other concept. Since when is it kosher in social science surveys to count "don't know" as a Yes answer? In any event, the 21-percent figure for atheists who "believe in god" was reached only by combining the 3 percent "other/don't know" with the 12 percent "impersonal force" responses and the 6 percent "personal god" responses.

The report text states that 8 percent of atheist respondents said they were "absolutely certain" that a God or universal spirit exists? But this fudges the results shown in the tables. On p. 28 of the full report (p. 31 of the pdf), 3 percent of atheist respondents were "absolutely certain" that a personal god exists and 4 percent were "absolutely certain" that an "impersonal force"-type god exists. That adds up to 7 percent, not 8 percent. In contrast, 73 percent of atheist respondents responded that they don't believe in God.

Atheists and other members of the reality-based community are used to being treated as outliers and (relatively) unimportant curiosities in social science surveys. And we are used to seeing this sort of imprecision and sloppiness in survey design, where various kinds of non-believers and religiously-unaffiliated folks are lumped together.

A six question survey for the Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist, Victoria, Pamela, Nouri, Daisy, Eboo, Asim, Ahmed, Mo and all the other Muslims out there:

Do you believe:

1. In "pretty/ugly wingie" thingies?

2. That the long-dead Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words now listed in the koran?

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life?

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7 800 year-old feud between Sunnis and Shiites give significant credence that suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran?

5. That having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of lust and polygamy?

6. And that the condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of anger and greed???????

Gen.1 [27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God (Bible, King James Version)

Garyd: Hell is man's natural end point lest God intervene.

My comment: It doesn't look an intelligent nor elegant design.

Peace and good wishes for all,

JAC

You're both right God sends no one to hell. It is from there he must rescue them.

Hell is man's natural end point lest God intervene.

GaryD - now don't make me paste my very long list of famous atheists again.

Last time it was only a few scientists. Next time it might be the whole enchilada. Besides, I did a poll, and only 1 in 5 atheists come off as ordinary people. The rest are brilliant....

Speaking of smart people, I was a bit disappointed that Obama has conjured the whole faith-based charity business all over again - but apparently he knows what he's doing. The evangelicals will be lining up in droves to vote for Obama come November. Won't that be a hoot!

I guess not ALL smart people are atheists.....

plain and simply if they believe in god they are not atheists. If one claims to be an atheist and then says he believes in god, then obviously he is confused on the term atheist. It's that simple..... really. All one needs to do is look up the word atheism in the dictionary.

ANGELA

You wrote, "WELL, I'VE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT MOST PEOPLE, INCLUDING PROFESSING CHRISTIANS MAKE A GOD TO SUIT THEIR SELF (SINFUL BEHAVIOR)i.e., God is a forgiving God and would never send anyone to hell,".

Actually, Angela, God has never sent anyone to hell, if someone dies and finds themself in hell, they will know that not only are they responsible for being in hell but that they built it.

On the subject of hell, some people seem to think that hell is seperation from God whereas it is going to God but the Consuming Fire of Pure Love burns you instead of caressing you. Jesus won the keys to hell and will use them in due time.

Seperation from God is spiritual death and Jesus won the keys to spiritual death also and will also use them in due time.

Christianity is just part of God's Plan which God has had since before creation and His Plan is for ALL to be with Him in the new heavens and the new earth.

Jesus extended an invitation to "Come follow Me" and to "take up your cross", we are called/chosen to be "Good Friday" people and on Jesus's "Good Friday", He said, "Father forgive them", them means ALL OF US.

Believing in or knowing God's Name does not make one a christian.

God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof.

God chooses Who He chooses, as it says, "Remember I have chosen you, you haven't chosen Me", I am just a messenger but the dawning of the seventh day will arrive but the night of the sixth day will fall upon the planet just as Jesus told us.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum

I don't see how they are getting their claimed +/- 2 point confidence interval at 95% with a sample of 640 out of a population of well over 1 million.

I'm not sure I make anything of these numbers at all.

Obviously, the notion of atheists as an intellectual elite is a bit short of reality.

"The 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS), the most accurate portrait of English-language literacy in the United States, found that 40 to 44 million Americans, or approximately one quarter of the US population, are functionally illiterate, and another 50 million have marginal literacy skills."

"According to a new Pew survey, 21% of American atheists believe in God or a universal spirit, 12% believe in heaven and 10% pray at least once a week. What do you make of this?"

As with the general population, many atheists do not know how to read.

Atheism is compatible with a belief in God but we have to be very careful about what we mean by God. Atheism is also compatible with a belief in heaven and prayer, but again we have to be careful with definitions.

First we can observe the rather common phenomenon that atheists who repudiate any sort of belief in God often believe in a rather utopian form of politics which can be associated with heaven, prayer, and God for that matter. We all are familiar with communist beliefs, a type of apocalyptic belief which is of course that a communist society will be ushered in by the catastrophe of capitalism. And in general it can be said that for all attempts to remove God, prayer and the afterlife from one's mind, one's behavior is still tainted with such beliefs.

Take for example this line of reasoning: suppose we grant to atheists that God is a figment of the human imagination, that heaven is figment also, and of course that prayer is useless. This means of course that we have rewritten our origin to an extent--that although we do not know what it is, we have postulated it as a mystery. With that established as a working platform, have we eradicated God, heaven and prayer from our minds? No, of course not. No matter how secular we become, no matter how materialistic we become, God and heaven and our hopes for such (prayer) continue to exist even if only a figment of imagination--and they continue to exist because we are humans and striving to move away from the animal world to something higher. The danger then from a pure extinction of a belief in God and heaven and prayer is that we will lose heart and just consider ourselves animals among all the others and nothing more--that there really is nothing more we can make of ourselves except it be just a somewhat more intelligent animal than the rest. To be absolutely clear, humans continue to believe in God despite all eradication of religion because humans believe they can be radically more than they are--humans are just not satisfied being merely animals, will not tolerate a loss of God to the point of a pure animal life and nothing more.

So God and heaven and prayer persist even with a quite strong atheism. God, heaven and prayer are totally eradicated only when we totally identify ourselves with animals and nothing more--and very few people consistently live with the view of being nothing more than an animal. What political future if we humans are nothing more than animals? If humans truly are animals and nothing more politics can only be evolving ourselves into the optimal species form--or at best transforming ourselves into another species. Or are we expected to keep evolving into...? Well, I can only write "God" here because it seems now hope is growing quite large...It should be plain what I mean: no matter how secular we become, no matter how materialistic, no matter how much of matter we take ourselves to be, matter finds a way (at least in the human dimension) to take itself as something more than matter--unless it deliberately limits itself to matter, clearly postulates a limit to itself. But if atheists do that, how many people will live the atheistic life? Very few. Very few will want to embrace such a narrowly circumscribed world. So atheists must meet believers half way. Perhaps there is no God in the traditional sense--perhaps God is only a figment of the imagination--but we had better believe we can become much more than the animals we are now--at least as much that we will call ourselves Gods--or we will just wallow in the animal life and gradually despair, and turn back to God in the traditional sense.

Quite simply atheists might convince us there is no God, but they had better give us reason to hope we are much more than animals--paradoxically Gods--or people will not embrace atheism. That is just a simple reflection on human nature. A raw, naked atheism of a world of chance in which humans come from nothing and go to nothing and never get to be much of anything but scrabbling animals just above all the other animals we kill one way or another...

It should be clear that no matter how atheistic a person gets, God, heaven and prayer get a say. In fact perhaps we say our prayers most of all.

interesting- will this be the battle between the fundy atheists and the looser ones who claim to share that moniker?

maybe they should have phrased it as personal god instead of just god-
then make a different breakdown for universal conscious force or something-

velikovsky's collective unconscious could hardly be mistaken for personal god for instance-
buddhists dont believe in a persoanl god either-

i think the question kind of lumps a very diverse group into one little box an that si kind of demeaning and stultifying to atheists trying to express a belief in soemthing other than the material- which isnt covered in the small category and may be something else altogether-

Hi Stephen, you're right: The Pew study is 92 pages and I had a chance to read a large portion of it last week. I'm trying to understand the characterization of an evangelical christian as it's definition has changed during the past couple of years. This is the barna research and also other bible-based Christian research group's definition:
We believe in one God, eternally existing in three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

About Man
We believe that man was created in the image of God, that he sinned and thereby incurred physical and spiritual death; that human beings are sinners by nature and practice.

About the Bible
We believe the Scriptures to be verbally inspired of God and inerrant, and that they are of supreme and final authority in faith and life.

We believe it is the duty and privilege of all believers to witness by deed and word to those truths set forth in the Holy Scriptures.

About Hell
We believe in the bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust; the eternal life of the saved and the everlasting punishment of the lost.

About Jesus Christ
Jesus Christ was pre-existent and eternal and in His incarnation was begotten by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. He is truly God and truly man.

We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures as the substitutionary Sacrifice; that all who receive Him by faith are saved and justified on the ground of His shed blood.

We believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ and in His ascension into Heaven to be the High Priest and Advocate of the members of His Body, the Church.

About the Second Coming
We believe in the personal, imminent and visible return of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

About being a Christian
That all believers are called to live their lives to God’s glory, connected with His family, growing to be like Christ, serving the Church, and reaching the lost.

About Baptism and Communion
We believe there are two sacraments set forth in the Scriptures: Baptism and the Supper of our Lord (Communion).

As a born-right-the-first-time atheist, I found the survey results a little surprising. So, I did some research, going to far as to actually *read* the survey questions and look at some of the statistics. The question itself will tend to bias this sample. If a respondent says something akin to no religion, the interviewer should ask; "...would you say that was atheist, agnostic, or just nothing in particular?" Without any sort of definitions of what atheist and agnostic mean, I suspect that many people who think of themselves simply as "unbelievers" will tend to pick the choice that (to them) symbolizes unbelief - i.e. atheist - without contemplating what actual implications go along with the term. Ultimately, to me, this is a warning that one should be very very careful using a broad, general survey to try to draw conclusions about very specific subgroups or questions.

What I actually find more interesting (and what should be a real wake-up call for you believers out there) is the variety of responses from the religious folks. Only 90% of evangelicals were "absolutely certain" of the existence of God! (see the bar chart on page 6 of the summary of key findings). Further, if you look at the full study results, 9% of evangelicals say that abortion should be legal in all cases (24% say in most cases). I'm not trying to pick on the evangelicals here, I'm just pointing out that your neighbor in the pew has a very high probability of believing something *fundamentally* different than you.

mr mark, you're so funny- so from merriam webster's definition of the word 'theory' you have comprehended the defintion of scientific theory?

scientists do not even agree on a definition (other than what is proven or not proven- hint- theory is not proven)

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=9Mx9at8T0QwC&oi=fnd&pg=PR15&dq=definition+of+scientific+theory&ots=Ik5XfkhV0f&sig=sRLka2gKcrt1Dkk_Uhneot6dUI4#PPA435,M1

i reccomend page 410

Mr. Mark,

Angela is not speaking to you because you're nothing but kindling.

Personally, I have to pity the "Christian" God for the company "He" has to keep.

Mr. Mark: my statement "are we trying to please men or God" is in direct response to the Pew Study (which I read last week) and to believers not atheists.

Angela asks:

"ARE WE TRYING TO PLEASE MEN OR GOD?"

As there is no god, you are - ultimately - trying to please men. Most notably, yourself.

Think about it.

No atheist believes in god. To say otherwise is folly.

Obviously, a large number of people don't know the definition of the word "atheist." Hey, it happens. Look at the number of people who don't know the definition of the word "theory" when used in a scientific context.

All this Pew poll reveals is the fact that the education of many Americans is suspect. This poll is akin to saying that 21% of non-racists believe blacks are intellectually inferior because they're black.

I find that statistic very strange, and I'd like to see the questions. Did they ask "Do you believe in a supernatural being?" or "Do you believe in God?" (which many people would take to be the Christian god) A "universal spirit" could be something like the Tao, which isn't anything like the "God" of Judeo-Christian tradition.

Prayer & meditation are like mental massage, so actually believing that someone is listening to your thoughts isn't necessary to derive some benefit from these practices.

Supposed "atheists" believing in a heaven is incomprehensible to me. There has to be something wrong with the methodology of this questionnaire.

I believe this is a huge wake up call for Christians: First: How can atheists believe in God when atheism's definition is to not believe in any God; I believe most atheists are not atheists but agnostics; 2) how can they believe in heaven; 3) if they don't believe in God then who are they praying to: When I look at the 2nd commandment: "You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I The Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate Me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love Me and keep My Commandments." WELL, I'VE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT MOST PEOPLE, INCLUDING PROFESSING CHRISTIANS MAKE A GOD TO SUIT THEIR SELF (SINFUL BEHAVIOR)i.e., God is a forgiving God and would never send anyone to hell, THAT'S MAKING A GOD TO SUIT YOURSELF AS GOD IS LOVING, FORGIVING, MERCIFUL BUT HE'S ALSO JUST.

We as christians should be evanglizing more and stop trying to fit into the world culture and definition of WHO GOD REALLY IS. ARE WE TRYING TO PLEASE MEN OR GOD?